ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rural Economy

Julian Sturdy: What policies his Department is putting in place to increase growth in the rural economy.

David Heath: Stimulating economic growth is the top priority for this Government. We want to see rural areas contributing to and benefiting from that growth. A £165 million package of measures from the 2011 rural economy growth review is helping rural communities. We are improving superfast broadband infrastructure in the remotest areas and boosting key sectors such as tourism. We are increasing export potential and unlocking barriers to growth by removing red tape.

Julian Sturdy: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. He is right that superfast broadband is one of the key drivers of growth in the rural community. York and North Yorkshire have made great progress on delivering the Government’s target of 90% coverage by 2015. However, there is a danger that the digital divide could widen for some rural communities in the other 10% of cases. Will my hon. Friend do all he can to push the case for those rural communities?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We must make sure that the advantages of high-speed broadband reach every community across the country, which is exactly what we are determined to do in time. The good news is that we are reaching an extra 100,000 households a week, so they now have the opportunity to use high-speed broadband. I think that is very good news and we will, of course, continue to roll out the programme across the country.

Kevan Jones: If the Minister is so committed to boosting rural growth, why is he taking out of the pockets of poor agricultural workers a quarter of a billion pounds-worth of money by abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which was opposed by two thirds of those in the consultation, including many farmers?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong about the consequences. I note that in the other place yesterday evening, their Lordships, having carefully considered the evidence, supported the Government’s position.

Roger Williams: Last night at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on cheese, the Minister was able to see a wide array of excellent British cheeses, which are highly regarded in the world markets. I know that the Secretary of State has done good work promoting British cheese in China. What other countries will the Department target on behalf of these excellent British products?

David Heath: I think we have to do everything we can to promote excellent British products. Indeed, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about cheese. I was delighted to see cheese from my own constituency on display at last night’s meeting, but I was even more delighted only last week to see cheese produced only four miles from where I live on display in Dubai at the biggest international trade fair in the world. We were promoting the interests of British business, and over 60 businesses were there. I will also be pleased to join British companies in promoting good British produce in Bangkok next week.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will be aware of a good article and the very fine speech given just this week to the Engineering Employers Federation by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Much of what he is saying would regenerate the rural economy, but he is also a passionate supporter of crowd funding and crowd sourcing, which many of us see as a regenerative tool in towns and in the rural economy. What does the Minister think of that?

David Heath: I think that any tool that is effective in urban areas is likely to be effective in rural areas as well. I have repeatedly sought to make the point not only that rural areas must not miss out on economic regeneration but that they are in many ways in a position to lead, as they have a huge contribution to make. I want to ensure that every single community in this country has the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of economic growth as it develops.

Philip Hollobone: The residents of 22 villages in the borough of Kettering are concerned about petrol and diesel prices, rural crime and the access to and cost of off-grid energy, as well as access to rural broadband. What representations to the relevant Government Departments has my hon. Friend made on those important issues?

David Heath: This Department has a responsibility for rural proofing across government, which means that we continually have a dialogue with other Departments about all the factors that have the potential to hold back individuals, businesses and communities in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that we constantly make the point that we must have a clear regard for the more than 80% of the landmass that is rural Britain. It comprises only 20% of the population, but it is nevertheless enormously important to the fabric of this country.

Huw Irranca-Davies: How I wish that I had a pair of the Minister’s rose-tinted spectacles. In fact, the Government’s national economic strategy is shot; rural growth is further constrained by inflation running at double the national average, higher costs of living and working; and the slow roll-out of rural broadband is leading to open warfare around the Cabinet table. How does the Minister believe that taking another quarter of a billion pounds out of the rural economy and the pockets of low-paid farm workers by scrapping the Agricultural Wages Board will jump-start the rural economy?

David Heath: I spent 13 years on the Opposition Benches trying to press the case for rural areas. The then Labour Government did not listen to what was said in rural areas then, and I note that the hon. Gentleman is not listening now to the realities of what is happening in those areas and the realities of what is happening in the agricultural industry. If he did, he would take a very different position.

Flood Defences

Mel Stride: What assessment he has made of the effects of partnership funding on the provision of flood defences.

Richard Benyon: Partnership funding is enabling more schemes to go ahead and allowing greater local choice. It has already produced up to £148 million in external funding over the four years to 2015, compared with £13 million during the previous three years. There are indications that a larger proportion of protected households will be in deprived areas, and up to a quarter more schemes are set to go ahead in the coming years than was the case under the old system.

Mel Stride: The additional funding will be most welcome to my constituents—not least those in Buckfastleigh and Kennford, who were grievously affected by the recent flooding—but may I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it is rolled out as quickly as possible, and may I also ask him how many properties in Devon will benefit from it?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for his constituents, who suffered so much flooding last year, and his question is entirely understandable. I can tell him that £35 million of the £120 million that we announced in the autumn statement last year is already available for the 2013-14 financial year, and that the remaining £85 million will be allocated to schemes starting in 2014-15. That means that 5,000 homes in Devon will benefit from additional funds.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister confirm that even with the money announced in the autumn statement, capital spending by his Department in 2013-14 will be less than it was in 2008?

Richard Benyon: That old chestnut must be laid to rest. In cash terms, we are spending roughly the same in this comprehensive spending review period as the hon. Gentleman’s party spent in the last one. His Chancellor, in his last Budget statement, announced 50% cuts in capital budgets for Departments such as mine.
	The hon. Gentleman cannot come here and try to compare apples with pears. Labour Members must move on from this, and understand that we are doing what we need to do in very difficult financial circumstances.

Nick Gibb: In February, the Minister announced £10.8 million of capital to upgrade the tidal defences on the east bank of the River Arun in Littlehampton, in my constituency. That is a welcome decision, which demonstrates the Government’s commitment to building new flood defences, but it is not time for the insurance industry to match that commitment by agreeing to a replacement for the flood insurance statement of principles, which expires in June this year?

Richard Benyon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work that he did in drawing attention to the needs of the people of Littlehampton following the floods that they suffered so recently. We are working at a very fast tempo at the highest levels of Government to try to achieve an agreement which will massively improve on the statement of principles, which first does not cover every home and secondly contains nothing about affordability. We want a better system for the future.

Extreme Weather

Barry Gardiner: What steps he is taking to prepare and adapt homes, businesses, agricultural practices and infrastructure against the threat of flooding and water scarcity resulting from the increased frequency of extreme weather.

Richard Benyon: The Government will publish a report on the national adaptation programme later this year, which will set out actions to address the impacts of the increased frequency of extreme weather events on the built environment, our infrastructure network, businesses, our farming and forestry sectors, the natural environment and our health. The Government are spending £2.3 billion on reducing the risk from flooding and coastal erosion over this four-year period.

Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will know that last year in the UK flooding was experienced on one in every five days, while on one in every four days there was drought subject to a hosepipe ban. One in seven houses and 10% of the country’s critical infrastructure are now exposed to flood risk, yet by 2014-15 some 23% less will be spent on these matters. Will the Minister consider the exhortation from the chairman of the Environment Agency to take urgent action now to avoid the coming problems?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the extremes of weather we have experienced in the last 12 months. We were facing a real problem with drought, and there was a 3% chance of getting a sufficiently wet summer to alleviate it, yet it happened. However, it has of course brought huge other problems. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the level of spending—I refer him back to my response to the previous question—and I can assure him that we listen very carefully to experts in the EA. When we asked its leadership what further projects it
	could bring forward if we found extra money, it told us and we got the money; that was announced in the September statement.

Mark Spencer: What can the Minister do to assist residents who live near small tributaries and who cannot understand which authority is responsible for them? There seems to be confusion between highways authorities, the EA, local councils and county councils as to who has responsibility for clearing the waterways around tributaries.

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This matter was discussed at yesterday’s EA board meeting and we are in close touch with the EA and other organisations. There is a degree of confusion. That was brought out in the Pitt review. Some effort has been put in, and some progress has been made in addressing the problem, but I absolutely concede we are not there yet and there is still confusion about who is responsible and what the priorities are. We want to make sure that the priorities are protecting people and their properties and the environment.

Puppy Farms

George Eustice: What recent representations his Department has received on tackling the problem of backstreet puppy farms and breeders.

David Heath: In addition to a recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on dog control and welfare, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord de Mauley, has received a number of letters on the subject of puppy farms, irresponsible breeders and the internet advertising of dogs. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides the necessary powers for local authorities to investigate allegations of poor welfare among all dog breeders.

George Eustice: I am grateful for that answer. In the Committee’s recent inquiry, we received evidence that a contributory factor in respect of the problem of status dogs is the number of backstreet puppy breeders, because dogs are more likely to become aggressive and unmanageable if they are not socialised and cared for properly in the first few months. The law currently allows people to breed up to five puppy litters a year without licensing, but we recommended that the figure should be reduced to two. Will the Minister look carefully at that proposal?

David Heath: I have every sympathy with the reasoning behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, and I certainly deplore the irresponsible breeding of dogs. I can assure him that it is already the case that if a local authority considers that someone is in the business of breeding and selling dogs but they have produced fewer than five litters in a year, a licence would still be needed, and any dog-breeding establishment that produces five or more litters in a 12-month period will also need a licence regardless of whether it is considered to be in the business of breeding and selling dogs. Guidance on that was given to local authorities back in 1999, explaining precisely where those responsibilities lie.

Jim Shannon: Backstreet puppy farms are a problem in the entire United Kingdom. As a Northern Ireland MP, I am also aware of such farms in the Republic of Ireland, with puppies coming through Northern Ireland to the UK and going directly from the Republic of Ireland to the UK mainland. Has the Minister had any discussions about this problem with the Government in the Republic of Ireland, so that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together with the Republic of Ireland can address it?

David Heath: I will certainly draw that point to the attention of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary and see whether he has had an opportunity to speak to his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland and also in Northern Ireland on the issue. If he has not, I am sure he will want to take up the suggestion that has been made.

EU Regulation

Priti Patel: What steps he is taking to reduce the costs of EU regulations affecting farmers and food producers.

David Heath: We are committed to reducing regulatory costs on farmers and food processors. In the EU we are working closely with the Commission to ensure that all new proposals adhere to the Commission’s communications on smart regulation and the Government’s guiding principles for EU legislation. We are reducing unnecessary burdens from existing legislation through our response to the farming taskforce, with initiatives that include taking action to simplify paperwork and improve the way on-farm inspections are performed.

Priti Patel: Figures from my hon. Friend’s Department show that in the past two years, 67 EU regulations have been passed, adding £500 million in costs to British farmers and producers. What steps is he taking to support our farmers by cutting back on EU regulations and cutting the costs of the EU for British farmers?

David Heath: Not all those costs will impact on farmers and food processors, of course, but the hon. Lady raises a valid point about the cost of EU regulation that I hope is not lost on Members of the European Parliament and European Commissioners. That is precisely why we are committed to making progress on our better regulation agenda and why at EU level we continue to press for all new proposals to adhere to the Commission’s smart regulation policy. We are also abiding by this Government’s principles for EU legislation, which include regulating only when there are no alternatives and ensuring that there is no gold-plating when introducing European measures into UK law.

Kerry McCarthy: When I met the Minister on 10 December last year to discuss my Food Waste Bill, he promised he would give me a copy of the advice his Department had received from the Food Standards Agency about whether the provisions in the Bill to remove civil and criminal liability from good faith donors of food waste would be compatible with EU food safety regulations, as it was suggested by his
	Department that they were not. I am still waiting for a copy of that advice despite chasing the Department—can he update me on that?

David Heath: I can only apologise that the hon. Lady has not yet received that information. I will look into the matter in the Department to ensure that she gets what she has asked for.

Food Adulteration

Andrew Miller: What recent discussions he has had on the adulteration of food in the UK.

Ian Murray: What recent discussions he has had on the adulteration of food in the UK.

Owen Paterson: On 25 and 27 February I updated the House on the discussions I have had on the adulteration of food in the UK with the food industry and at a European level. I continue to have regular update discussions with the Food Standards Agency and I shall also be meeting the food industry on a regular basis.

Andrew Miller: Obviously, this is not just about adulteration with horsemeat. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that consumers have the right to know everything about the content of food that is sold to them. Will he reassure the House about whether he has done a proper analysis of the capacity of British laboratories to undertake the research necessary to give consumers the confidence that they are entitled to?

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and entirely agree that no matter what the price of a product, it must be as marked on the label and as sold. To do otherwise is a fraud on the public. He asks about laboratory capacity. We need only look at what has happened: in an extraordinarily short time in recent weeks, the industry has conducted 5,430 tests that have shown that less than 1% of the products are adulterated.

Ian Murray: May I draw the House’s attention to a non-declarable interest as a former employee of the Meat Hygiene Service? It costs approximately £170 to test each slaughtered horse for bute, yet the meat is worth only about £300. The industry has talked a lot about full cost recovery, so will the Minister tell the House when the taxpayer will stop having to pick up the bill for bute testing and how much he estimates the total bill will be?

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is very relevant. We have cauterised the problem of bute getting into the food chain, as no horse carcase can enter the food chain until it has tested negative for bute, but he is right to raise that question. This is a holding position. I had a meeting with senior members of the horse industry recently because the horse passport scheme that we inherited is unsatisfactory. We will make proposals on that in due course.

Anne McIntosh: The Food Standards Agency has a big role to play in this regard and I believe that it has failed to step up to the plate. Following the capability review that was completed in January and the work being undertaken by the National Audit Office, when might the Government be minded to make proposals to reform the FSA?

Owen Paterson: I have to remind my hon. Friend and the House that this is an overall European competence. Under regulation 178/2002 we must work within the European regime, and having an independent agency is very much part of that. I pay tribute to the work that the agency has conducted under great pressure in recent weeks, working very closely with the industry and conducting an extraordinarily large number of tests—5,430, as I said. Once we have seen where this criminal conspiracy began and once we have found the criminals—I remind the House that this is an international problem, with 23 countries involved—we will begin to look at the lessons learned. I am clear that within this regime we must have more testing of product and more random testing of finished product.

Neil Parish: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the lessons that we can learn from this is to have much better, honest labelling and to know exactly where our processed meat product comes from and that it is produced to good farm-assured standards such as the red tractor scheme in this country?

Owen Paterson: I agree that clearer labelling could help, but we are up against a criminal conspiracy and I think the criminals would have got through. I had a constructive meeting with the French, German, Austrian and Finnish Ministers in Brussels last week, and we are asking the European Commission to accelerate its report on the labelling and marking of the country of origin.

Mary Creagh: On 22 February Sodexo announced that it had found horsemeat in a beef product and withdrew meat from schools in Gloucestershire, Southampton and Leicestershire and the armed forces. Sodexo has refused publicly to name the product, the level of horse adulteration or the meat company which supplied it, thereby preventing other organisations from knowing whether their supplies are at risk. The Government know the name of that meat supplier. Will the Secretary of State now name that company so that the rest of the public sector can check its supplies?

Owen Paterson: I discussed this issue yesterday with the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, who is completely satisfied that the information required from Sodexo has been supplied. The hon. Lady must understand that there is an investigation going on and in some of these cases it might lead to criminal prosecution. [Interruption.] No, the FSA is clear that it must be guarded about what information can be revealed in case the investigations are impinged upon.

Mary Creagh: I find that answer extraordinary. The Secretary of State has a duty to tell the public what he knows and in every other case where supermarkets and
	other suppliers have found adulterated meat products, their suppliers have been named. How is the public sector supposed to check?
	I want to move on to a letter from John Young, a former manager at the Meat Hygiene Service, who sent this letter from High Peak Meat Exports to DEFRA in April 2011. It warned the Government that bute-contaminated horsemeat could illegally enter the human food chain because of failures with the horse passport system, which I have raised in the House before. On 17 February the Secretary of State ordered an urgent investigation into those claims. What has that investigation found, and has he discovered why his Government colleagues ignored that warning?

Owen Paterson: To clarify the previous answer, Sodexo made it clear to all its customers which products there was a problem with. It has withdrawn them all but in the case of an investigation which might grow criminal, it would not be sensible to reveal names of suppliers. This is a criminal conspiracy which covers 23 different countries, and it does not help the police to arrive at prosecutions if information is revealed.
	On horse passports, we are clear that we have fixed the problem of bute getting into the food chain. No carcases will get into the food chain until they have tested negative for bute. That is absolutely clear, and we are clear that the horse passport regime which we inherited from the hon. Lady’s party needs reforming, and we will do that in due course.

Mr Speaker: We are much obliged to the Secretary of State.

Food Adulteration

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the devolved Administrations on the adulteration of food in the UK.

Gregg McClymont: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on the adulteration of food.

Owen Paterson: I have been in regular contact with Ministers in the devolved Administrations to discuss the issue. Ministers from Scotland and Wales attended my meeting with the food industry on 18 February, where we made it clear that the adulteration of food is unacceptable and that consumers have to be the top priority. I most recently met Ministers in all the devolved Administrations at a pre-Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 25 February and the Welsh Minister briefly on Monday. I am grateful for their support.

Mark Lazarowicz: Scotland has a high-quality food industry and it is important that its reputation is maintained. What steps is the Minister taking, along with the devolved Administrations, to look at the prevention of adulteration in areas other than those that we have seen so far? Clearly, we cannot predict criminality but we should make sure that we act proactively as far as possible.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be proud of the quality of Scottish products, as we are, because of the high quality of the raw materials, their traceability and the thoroughness of our production systems. That is why this case must be sorted out. We cannot allow a small number of criminals to do huge damage to a key industry. We are discussing the issue of other types of adulteration with the FSA. That is particularly important to some minorities, so we will be looking to test for pork adulteration.

Gregg McClymont: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Select Committee, has been clear that the Government were caught flat-footed by the horsemeat scandal. In that case, how would the Secretary of State describe the Scottish Government’s response, given that they picked up the phone nearly a week after Asda began clearing its shelves?

Owen Paterson: I am not responsible for the Scottish Government. All I will say is that I would like to thank the Scottish Minister and the Welsh Minister for their steadfast support. They came down to the last big meeting I held with industry leaders, and we were all completely united on the need to sort out this criminal conspiracy in order to clear the name of British food making. We want to get exporting and pushing on to expand the industry. We will not have it held back by criminal activity.

James Gray: Cross-contamination by horsemeat in every part of the United Kingdom could be stopped if we prevented the killing of horses in multi-species abattoirs. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the trade in horsemeat is fairly revolting and that Britain would be a better place if we had none of it at all? Let us kill the horsemeat trade altogether and we will not have to worry about contamination.

Owen Paterson: A small number of horses—about 9,000—are slaughtered every year in this country. I am not sure that abattoirs would be viable if they concentrated only on one species, but it is an idea that I would like to discuss with my hon. Friend and perhaps take further.

Gary Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with his Welsh and Scottish counterparts the fact that many of our constituents find this issue very distasteful, not only because of the thought of eating horsemeat but because of the certain knowledge that horses will be transported and slaughtered in appalling circumstances by shadowy people in those 23 countries?

Owen Paterson: I have discussed the issue with Commissioner Borg and other Ministers, because there is a significant trade in horses across the continent of Europe. My hon. Friend and his constituents are absolutely right: if they buy a product that is sold as processed beef, regardless of price, it should be processed beef. Any adulteration with any other material is a conspiracy to defraud the public, and we are determined to get to the bottom of it.

William Bain: The export of Scotch beef and Scotch beef-based food products is vital for the manufacturing base in the
	Scottish economy. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Scottish Government to ensure that producers and consumers can have confidence in the products they buy?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend the Minister of State attended the 100th anniversary celebrations of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I have discussed the matter with Minster Lochhead. We both agree that we have a job to do, working closely with the industry, to promote strict traceability and production systems. I was interested to note that at the NFU conference last week in Birmingham that people really had their tails up because there is now an opportunity, with the public being so interested in the supply chain, to stress how good our industry is and how reliable our products are.

Flood Insurance

Lilian Greenwood: What recent discussions he has had on flood insurance.

Richard Benyon: The availability and affordability of insurance in flood-risk areas are important issues for the Government. Constructive negotiations continue with the insurance industry, at the highest levels of Government, on a range of approaches that could succeed the current statement of principles. The Government are on course to spend £2.3 billion on reducing the risk from flooding and coastal erosion and delivering better protection to 165,000 households over the four years to March 2015.

Lilian Greenwood: On 24 January I asked the Minister how much premiums will rise if he fails to reach agreement with the insurance industry. In response, he assured me that negotiations were at an advanced stage and that he would come to the House with details shortly. I understand that he does not actually have a seat at the negotiating table, but when does he expect to have news of a deal from his Cabinet Office and Treasury colleagues?

Richard Benyon: I think that there is a misconception in some parts of the House that the statement of principles represents some halcyon world in which our constituents living in high flood-risk areas are protected from exorbitant rises in premiums. That is not the case. What we want is affordability to be brought into the new system. I am involved in those conversations at the highest levels and want to assure the House that we are working as hard as we can to find a solution that can give comfort to everyone who is at risk of flooding, particularly those on low incomes.

Harriett Baldwin: My constituents in West Worcestershire, which is quite flood-prone, are concerned about the length of the negotiations. I understand that the Association of British Insurers is asking for the taxpayer, in effect, to be the reinsurer of last resort. How confident is the Minister that we will be able to come up with a private sector-led solution in time for the expiration of the statement of principles?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend has a great many constituents who live in flood risk, and we want to be able to assure them that there is something that will continue after the end of the statement of principles. As I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the new system is better because it will not only be available to all properties that are at flood risk but will have an affordability element. We have in mind my hon. Friend’s constituents and many others around the country who live in flood risk, but we are also responsible to the taxpayer. We want to make sure that what we are doing is fair to the taxpayer and fair to the person living in flood risk.

Gavin Shuker: The Building Societies Association has said that the consequences of failing to get a deal would be “grave”. Potential buyers would find it difficult or impossible to get a mortgage, loan book values would drop, capital requirements would rise, and there would be less money to lend in the real economy. Is sales blight on 200,000 properties an acceptable price to pay for this Government’s inaction?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that there is inaction; I can assure him that there is an awful lot of action. Alongside the negotiations that have been going on, we have been producing documents such as one that has been highly recommended by the British Institute of Insurance Brokers Association: “Obtaining flood insurance in high risk areas”. We are also assisting people in flood-risk measures they take for their property at household level so that that will be reflected in the premium. The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the potential impact on mortgages and lenders, and that is one of the main drivers towards the quick result we want to get in this matter.

Mr Speaker: I am deeply obliged to the Minister, but there are a couple of people called Smith whom I still want to accommodate. I call Sir Robert.

Robert Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I reinforce to the Minister the importance of achieving affordability? Will he take the message from the people of Stonehaven, who have been flooded for a second time, that urgency is also important so that they can have the comfort of reinsuring their properties?

Richard Benyon: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. There is an urgent need to get a resolution, but I hope that he agrees—I am sure he does—that it cannot be at any price; we have to be mindful of the needs of the taxpayer as well as those of his constituents. This is a fiscal matter and therefore a UK responsibility, so it is important that we liaise closely with the devolved Governments as well.

Mr Speaker: From Smith on floods to Smith on fish. I call Mr Henry Smith.

Fish Discards

Henry Smith: What progress he has made on securing a ban on fish discards.

Richard Benyon: At last month’s EU Fisheries Council I secured agreement to a reformed common fisheries policy which includes a ban on discards. Alongside firm deadlines and the practical means to deliver a ban, this moves us much closer to eliminating the terrible waste caused by discarding. Discussions with the European Parliament will now begin in order to agree the final common fisheries policy reform package later this year.

Henry Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tenacity of his negotiating skills in Brussels, because some of the options that were being proposed would have been disastrous for British fishermen. May I seek assurances that in the further negotiations he will champion British fishermen and the welfare of British waters?

Richard Benyon: I thank my hon. Friend. Our fishermen have led the way in reducing discards through innovative schemes such as the catch quota scheme and Project 50%. There has been good work by my Department on supply chains and other measures that will need to be brought in to ensure that a discard ban works. My hon. Friend is right that we managed to see off some changes that would have dramatically watered down any discard ban. I am really pleased that we are now on track to achieving what the vast majority of our constituents want.

Topical Questions

Stephen Timms: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Owen Paterson: The priorities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are to grow the rural economy, improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health. As well as handling issues such as the adulteration of processed beef products, we continue to seek to put farming on a sustainable footing for the future. This includes working towards a common agricultural policy settlement that will enable farmers to respond to the needs of the market, while delivering valuable environmental benefits and boosting potential for exports. As I outlined at last week’s National Farmers Union conference, both of these things will enable farmers to capitalise on the growing domestic and global demand for high quality UK produce. At every opportunity we will champion our farmers and their rigorous standards of production and traceability.

Stephen Timms: In a series of decisions, the European Commission has unbalanced the previous level playing field in the European sugar market between beet processors and cane refiners. As a result, we have very high prices for sugar, super profits for beet processors and a threat to the viability of cane refining in Europe. Will the Minister make sure that the forthcoming changes to the CAP get us back to a level playing field?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely correct. At present, the quota regime is due to end in 2015 and he is right that sugar prices are 35% higher than world prices,
	which is 1% on the cost of the average shopping basket. We are clear that we want the quota regime to go. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that, at every opportunity when this issue is raised, I remember the need to defend the interests of cane importers and to make sure that the duty regime is fair to them.

John Pugh: Will Ministers update us on where we are with dangerous dogs legislation, given the continued prevalence of attacks and, indeed, organised dog fighting?

David Heath: My hon. Friend will be aware of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s recent announcement that we intend to proceed with changes to dangerous dog legislation by bringing in new antisocial behaviour provisions. We are talking to the Home Office about that and we intend to bring them in at the earliest opportunity.

Julie Elliott: What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents in Sunderland that when they buy a product, whether it is beef, lamb or even horse, they are getting what they have paid for and what they have been promised?

David Heath: I think that we have made it abundantly clear that that is exactly what needs to happen. Retailers and people in the catering industry have a clear responsibility and we are determined to do everything we can to make sure that that is the case, which is exactly what has been happening over the past few weeks.

Tony Baldry: Do Ministers consider it acceptable that a number of historic English churches are being made unusable as a consequence of bat faeces and that mediaeval wall paintings and other historic monuments are being irretrievably damaged as a consequence of bat urine? Churches are not farm barns. They are places of worship and should be respected as such.

Richard Benyon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and share his intense frustration. I am glad to say that we are moving forward with one church in Yorkshire, where we think we may have found a resolution, and some churches in Norfolk. It cannot have ever been the intention of those who imposed this directive on us to limit the ability of people to worship in a church that has been there for centuries.

Caroline Lucas: Last week the Secretary of State said that he was keen to delay European Union proposals to protect essential pollinators from neonicotinoids until new British field data were available. At the very same time, his own chief scientist was telling members of the Environmental Audit Committee that those same trials had been deeply compromised. When will the Secretary of State stop prevaricating and implement a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids without further delay?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the position clear. There have been a number of reports based on laboratory data. I have raised the issue
	with Minister Coveney, who has the presidency of the European Union, and had a meeting with Commissioner Borg about it only last week. We have asked them to wait until the data from our field trials have been analysed. We are fully aware of the strength of feeling that the hon. Lady represents, but there are also people who believe that these materials are not damaging. What is absolutely critical is that we do the right thing for bees, because they play such a fundamental role. There is no point in removing one product if it does not actually hurt bees. What we really need to do is look at how we can promote bee health, because it is so important to all plant life.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday was an important day in the political calendar, as it was national salad day, and that, in my constituency of Harlow and the surrounding villages of Roydon and Nazeing, we have the highest concentration of cucumber and pepper growers across the United Kingdom? Will the Government place more weight on food production in the planning system to help the Lee valley growers and glasshouse industry in my constituency?

David Heath: It certainly was an important day, because I had the opportunity to meet growers and discuss exactly that issue. There clearly needs to be proper accommodation for growing food stuffs in this country through the planning system, but it is equally right—the Government are clear on this—that local planning decisions need to be taken locally. Central Government have continually to remind our colleagues in local government, however, that having sustainable food production in this country is a top priority. We have an increasing population to feed, and we must ensure that we can do so in a sustainable way.

Diana Johnson: Even if the Treasury allows the Minister to resolve the general stand-off with the insurance industry over the statement of principles, will not the coalition’s flood defence cuts and the partnership funding plan mean that deprived areas such as mine in Hull will not be able to get the investment into the area to allow the insurance industry to provide insurance to my constituents?

Richard Benyon: I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at the facts of the schemes that we have just brought forward. These are schemes in many cities that have constantly failed to get above the line, but which, owing to partnership funding and extra Treasury funding, are now going ahead—in Leeds, Exeter, Ipswich and many others places. I understand the great concern in Hull, as it has suffered from flooding in the past, and I can assure her that it will remain a Government priority to build flood protection.

Anne McIntosh: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the progress being made on reform of the common agricultural policy? He must be aware of the particular difficulties of tenant farmers who are graziers on common land in north Yorkshire. Will he ensure that Natural England and the Department fully understand that tenants who are active farmers must benefit from the funds after CAP reform?

Owen Paterson: As my hon. Friend knows, the CAP negotiations are getting particularly intense at the moment. I have taken her comments on board and will bear them in mind as we draw nearer a conclusion.

Eilidh Whiteford: I very much welcome the progress being made towards ending the scandal of fish discards, but is the Minister aware of the dramatic recent falls in fish prices and does he share my concern that certain sections of the media are representing our sustainable fishing industry in a grossly irresponsible way?

Richard Benyon: My time in post has shown me that large areas of the media have no interest in understanding the complexities of marine management, so I share the hon. Lady’s concern. I can assure her that I am very concerned, particularly about the drop in the cod price, which I know will affect livelihoods in her constituency. We want a fair price for a sustainably harvested product, and everything that my Department is trying to do, with the devolved Governments, is working towards that.

Jessica Lee: I represent one of just three constituencies named after a river, so my question concerns our waterways. What support are the Government giving to groups such as the Erewash Canal Preservation and Development Association in my constituency, which, along with an army of volunteers, does a huge amount to help preserve our historic waterways?

Richard Benyon: I pay great tribute to that association, which does such great work. Last year, we achieved something very rare in this House. With all-party agreement, we secured the transfer of a Government body to a charity that has been well-funded for a considerable number of years, giving the opportunity for such organisations to benefit. The number of volunteer days around the country has rocketed as a result of the new charity.

Alison Seabeck: Following DEFRA press releases on the food adulteration issue, one of my constituents wrote to ask if she was the only one who had a problem with the fact that even 1% of products might not be what they claim to be on the label. As she pointed out, that means that of 5,000 products 50 will be adulterated, and that if those 50 are popular lines, millions of people are being duped. Will the Minister please do something about the self-satisfied tone of DEFRA press releases?

David Heath: I am not sure about a self-satisfied tone, but the Food Standards Agency is discussing exactly that issue with consumers at the moment. There is a clear difference between very trace contamination and deliberate adulteration. We all understand that. The question is where the dividing line is and what is acceptable. It is quite right that the FSA should talk to real people about that and see what they think.

Harriett Baldwin: It was a tough year for farmers in west Worcestershire last year, so can the Minister cheer them up by telling them how well the Rural Payments Agency performed this year?

David Heath: I would be delighted to do that, but I am not sure that even the performance of the RPA will be enough entirely to cheer up farmers who are wrestling with the weather. In the written statement that I made to the House earlier, I confirmed that by 19 February 2013, the RPA had paid out a total of £1.6 billion to more than 102,000 farmers, which is 98.4% of customers. That exceeds the performance target for March and meets the EU benchmark some four months early. Farmer satisfaction levels are the highest ever recorded, and the RPA has just delivered the most successful payment record in its history. That is an extremely good job.

Mr Speaker: We are all now better informed.

Kelvin Hopkins: The common fisheries policy was described recently by a continental EU politician as a “disaster”, so those of us in the UK who take that view are not alone. Is it not the case that monitoring fishing in EU waters, including discards, cannot be effective until those waters are returned to the historic boundaries of member states?

Richard Benyon: I share the view that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster: it has been a disaster for fish stocks, fishermen, coastal communities and the health of our seas. Working within the world in which we have to operate and playing the hand that we have been dealt, I hope that we are getting good, meaningful reform. We will be delivering much of the regionalisation that the hon. Gentleman wants through the reform of the policy.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Individual Voter Registration

Fiona Mactaggart: What support the Electoral Commission is offering to parliamentary constituencies with a high proportion of ethnic minority voters to assist with individual registration.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission will provide guidance and support to electoral registration officers on how best to ensure that people are registered under the new system. The guidance will advise on how best to reach those who are least likely to be registered or to respond to the change, including certain black and minority ethnic groups. Electoral registration officers should use their knowledge of the local community to ensure that they do that as effectively as possible. The Electoral Commission will also run a public awareness campaign targeted at those groups during the transition.

Fiona Mactaggart: I think that we need more than that. The data-matching pilots, the evaluation of which was published in December, revealed that in Tower Hamlets, data matching connected with only 55% of voters, whereas in Wigan the figure was over 80%. We know that the mismatch between the registration of
	ethnic minority eligible voters and white eligible voters is about 10%. Therefore, should the Electoral Commission not work with electoral registration officers in areas with large ethnic minority communities to look at new methods and resources that could ensure that individual registration works for all of us?

Gary Streeter: The hon. Lady raises an important point. The Electoral Commission is working with electoral registration officers, particularly in areas where there are hard-to-reach groups. However, electoral registration officers should rely on their own local experience and expertise to get the job done. It might help the hon. Lady to know that data matching is expected to ensure that 70% of people across the country will transfer automatically to the new register. As I have said before, anyone who is on the register in 2014 will be transferred automatically to the May 2015 register.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

King Richard III (Reburial)

Hugh Bayley: If he will meet representatives from York and Leicester, including the deans of the cathedrals and hon. Members from both cities to discuss arrangements for the reburial of King Richard III.

Tony Baldry: The legal position is clear. The Ministry of Justice has granted a licence to the university of Leicester, which means that it is responsible for keeping the remains of King Richard III and for their reburial. It is intended that they will be reburied in Leicester cathedral.

Hugh Bayley: In October, when we last discussed this matter, which was before it had been established that the remains were those of King Richard, the hon. Gentleman said:
	“Once those tests are concluded, the nature, place and marking of any reinterment will need seriously to be considered.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 1070.]
	I said at the time that those were wise words and that it would be wrong to bicker in this Chamber about the burial place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter should now be considered by experts, taking account of the wishes that King Richard expressed during his life and the views of clergy who do not have a vested interest, people from York and Leicester and all other interested parties, so that a decision can be made?

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman needs an Adjournment debate so that he can develop his thoughts fully. He cannot speak to Richard III about it, I am afraid, but he may be able to address the House.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate on this issue on Tuesday, and I suggest that he put those issues to Ministry of Justice Ministers then. As for the Church, we believe that in a
	situation such as this the remains should be reburied in the nearest possible church, which, as it happens, is Leicester cathedral.

Helen Goodman: My constituents have been raising with me questions about the legality of what is happening at the moment about this, and although I am sympathetic to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), I would like to press the case for burying Richard III in Barnard Castle, where he lived happily for many years and where his insignia, the white boar, can still be seen engraved in the castle.

Tony Baldry: I suggest that the hon. Lady seeks to intervene in the hon. Gentleman’s Adjournment debate with Ministry of Justice Ministers on Tuesday.

Edward Leigh: Unfortunately, Richard III did not have much time to plan his funeral. I do not think he would have been very worried about where he was buried, but he did live and die a Catholic, and so at his funeral could there not be some aspect of Catholicism to represent his life’s work?

Tony Baldry: Every Sunday, I say, “I believe in one holy Catholic Church.” The more serious point is that whatever service takes place at Leicester cathedral, I am sure that the Dean of Leicester will want to involve representatives of the local Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, one wants to try to ensure that an event such as the respectful reburial of an English king is carried out in a way that does not cause controversy and that is respectful and accords with the wishes of the whole community.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections

Meg Munn: What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the effectiveness of its public awareness campaign for the police and crime commissioner elections.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission commissioned an independent research study to assess the effectiveness of its public awareness campaign. The results show a significant increase in awareness of the main elements of the campaign, including the date of the election and how to vote. The Electoral Commission will publish its statutory report later this month on the police and crime commissioner elections, which will identify what wider lessons need to be learned.

Meg Munn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. The Association of Electoral Administrators, in a highly critical report, has said:
	“Voters were not at the heart of the process for the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections”.
	It has recommended that the Government should improve public awareness and participation by providing for
	“either a candidates’ mailing or the delivery of a booklet…about the…elections and about the candidates to all households.”
	Is that an issue that has been considered by the Electoral Commission?

Gary Streeter: It most certainly is considered. I do not want to prejudge the report, which will be published later this month, but it is well known that the Electoral Commission advised the Government in advance of its concerns about the lack of information about candidates going to voters. I very much hope that before the next police and crime commissioner elections, which are due in 2016, significant lessons will have been learned.

Stephen Mosley: One lesson I have learned is that if senior Members of this House, such as the shadow Home Secretary, are appearing on television screens before an election telling everyone that the election is a waste of time and money, we can hardly be surprised if the electors are not all that interested. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Members of this House are not prepared to stand up to champion democracy, we cannot be surprised if members of the public are not flocking to the polling stations?

Gary Streeter: I am delighted to say that the Electoral Commission is not responsible for any comments made by the shadow Home Secretary or any other Member of this House.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

National Audit Office

Barry Sheerman: What assessments he has received from independent sources of the quality of the work carried out by the National Audit Office.

Edward Leigh: A number of external reviews are in place to provide independent assessments of the quality of the National Audit Office’s work: the NAO’s financial audit work is subject to independent review by the audit quality review team of the Financial Reporting Council; the quality of the NAO’s value-for-money reports is independently reviewed by independent experts from Oxford university’s Said business school and Risk Solutions; and the NAO’s external auditors conduct an annual value-for-money assessment, which is reported to the Public Accounts Commission.

Barry Sheerman: I am most grateful for that reply. All Members would normally agree that the National Audit Office does a very good job. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was once a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Did he see the vicious attack on the Chair of that Committee by the Justice Secretary just a few days ago, alleging that she was biased, unprincipled and should not chair that Committee? Is that right?

Edward Leigh: I do not think it is for me as Chair of the Public Accounts Commission to try to second-guess vigorous debate. In my humble opinion, the PAC under its present Chair and with its present members does an excellent job in holding the Executive to account, and I am sure on all occasions it would avoid party politics.

Mr Speaker: I dare say the right hon. Member concerned will bear stoically and with fortitude whatever arrows have been pointed in her direction.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Archbishop of Canterbury

Simon Hughes: What discussions the Church Commissioners have had with the Archbishop of Canterbury on his priorities during the early stages of his ministry.

Tony Baldry: I am sure the House will wish Archbishop Justin well as he starts out on his public ministry to the nation. Early indications as to his priorities can be seen in a number of ways such as the appointment of new staff at Lambeth, the first ever woman chaplain to an Archbishop of Canterbury and a director of reconciliation. Other priorities clearly include his concerns for public spiritual renewal, peace building and reconciliation, as well as tackling economic depravation and support for marginalised communities.

Simon Hughes: I join the hon. Gentleman in wishing the new archbishop very well indeed. Have any discussions led us to understand that under his new tenure of office the Church will continue to speak out for the poor, the marginalised, the deprived and minorities, which the gospel made the clear and principal mission of the Church?

Tony Baldry: I am sure that Archbishop Justin will remember the words of Archbishop Temple who observed that the Church of England is an organisation that exists for people other than for itself. Given the work done by Archbishop Justin when he was Bishop of Durham on credit unions and food banks, and his concern about issues such as payday loans, I have no doubt that he will be at the forefront of pursuing concerns about economic depravation and supporting marginalised communities.

Kettering Street Pastors

Philip Hollobone: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the work of the Kettering street pastors.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England provides national financial support to a number of street pastor groups around the country through the church and community funds. As many Members will know, the street pastors initiative is an independent and ecumenical initiative with some 200 groups across the country.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering is the nightclub capital of north Northamptonshire. Into that fray, every Saturday night and Sunday morning, between the hours of 11 pm and 3 am, the Kettering street pastors, led by their inspirational co-ordinator, Fiona de Boltz, send out six to 10 volunteers to offer faith-based reassurance, comfort and guidance, as well as practical assistance to vulnerable young people. Will my hon. Friend agree to visit Kettering to see the good work they do?

Tony Baldry: It goes without saying that I would be extremely happy to go with my hon. Friend one Saturday night and see the work of the Kettering street pastors. Street pastors across the country do invaluable work in helping, caring and listening, and making our streets safer at nights and weekends.

Mr Speaker: We have heard from Mr Hollobone so we have got to hear from Mr Bone.

Peter Bone: It is an outrageous slur from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) to say that Kettering is the nightclub capital of north Northamptonshire when everybody knows it is Wellingborough and Rushden. Street pastors in my area do a tremendous job, in particular the Full Gospel church in Rushden, which has led the way with a homeless shelter. Does my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree?

Tony Baldry: On my way to Kettering, I promise and undertake to call on my hon. Friend’s constituency and witness the work of the street pastors there as well.

Mr Speaker: Gosh, the mind really is boggling.

Charitable Work

Robert Halfon: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the steps taken by the Government to support the role of churches and faith groups in their charitable work since May 2010.

Tony Baldry: The charitable and voluntary work of the Church at local and national levels is so diverse and varied that it is difficult to generalise about the impact of recent Government policy on it. One positive development has been funding from the Department for Communities and Local Government for the Near Neighbours programme. That is managed by the Church of England through the Church Urban Fund and does much to promote understanding between people of different faith communities in different parts of the country.

Robert Halfon: Will my hon. Friend use his good offices to lobby the Government to review the public benefit test in terms of its application by the Charity Commission to religious groups, so that we may avoid the situation ever again in which the Christian Brethren are discriminated against but pagan religions are given charitable status?

Tony Baldry: The previous Parliament decided that there should be a public benefit test for religious groups. If it is felt that the Charity Commission is applying the public benefit test incorrectly, I suspect that that is a matter for judicial review.

Pilgrimage of Prayer (Canterbury)

David Nuttall: What reports the Church Commissioners have received of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plan for a pilgrimage of prayer around the province of Canterbury.

Tony Baldry: Prior to the formal commencement of his public ministry and enthronement in Canterbury cathedral on 21 March, Archbishop Justin intends to tour parts of the province of Canterbury to meet its people and visit its diverse communities. From 14 March to 19 March, he will visit five cities and six cathedrals. Everyone is welcome to join in the journey of prayer at any point during the pilgrimage.

David Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I urge him to encourage the new Archbishop to include the deanery of Bury in his pilgrimage and, in particular, St Anne’s parish church, where I have the honour of serving as church warden?

Tony Baldry: The Archbishop of Canterbury is visiting cities in the province of Canterbury and my hon. Friend’s constituency is of course in the province of York. I have no doubt that in due course the Archbishop of Canterbury will visit the province of York and I will draw to his attention my hon. Friend’s request.

Women Bishops

Diana Johnson: What assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the proposals contained in the General Synod document “Women in the episcopate: a new way forward”.

Tony Baldry: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, there have been several developments since I last updated the House. The initial facilitator discussions have been completed and the consultation stage on a new document has just closed. The working group met earlier this week to consider 376 submissions and will meet again later this month. The intention, as I have mentioned to the House on occasions too numerous to particularise, is to have the House of Bishops give consideration to the results from the working party when it next meets in May.

Diana Johnson: “Women in the episcopate: a new way forward” could have been written by Sir Humphrey Appleby. It shows little urgency and, with both sides further apart, even less prospect of progress in July. Is it not time that the House took a stand and supported my ten-minute rule Bill next Wednesday on allowing women bishops?

Tony Baldry: There are two serious points there. First, I promise the hon. Lady that the Church of England is moving as fast as humanly possible on this, and I can assure her that everyone from Archbishop Justin to every member of General Synod wishes to have this matter resolved as speedily as possible. Secondly, the House needs to be cautious about wanting to go back to the position prior to 1919, when matters of doctrine and worship of the Church of England were settled by Parliament. In 1919, Parliament decided that those were matters for the Church Assembly—now the General Synod—and I am not sure that Parliament would wish to go back to that pre-1919 position without giving it some serious thought.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 11 March—Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
	Tuesday 12 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on tax fairness, followed by a debate on apprenticeships.
	Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 13 March—Remaining stages of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (day 1).
	Thursday 14 March—Launch of a report from the Justice Select Committee on youth justice, followed by debate on a motion relating to accountability and transparency in the NHS. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 18 March—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 19 March—Proceedings on a Bill.
	Wednesday 20 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 21 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 22 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 14 March will be:
	Thursday 14 March—Debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee report on the FCO’s human rights work in 2011, followed by general debate relating to Commonwealth day.
	The House will also be aware that this morning I made a written statement announcing that Her Majesty the Queen will open a new Session of this Parliament on Wednesday 8 May 2013.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business and the date of the Queen’s Speech.
	Tomorrow is international women’s day. To celebrate, the Government propose to remove the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s general equality duty from the statute book, having already slashed 70% of its funding. The Government have undermined the EHRC to such an extent that the United Nations has warned that it may lose its current A-list status as an independent body. It was therefore fitting that on Monday the other place blocked that attack on the commission’s powers to progress fairness. No wonder that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) suggested in The Sun on Tuesday that her own Front Bench needed equality training. Will the Leader of the House confirm when we will see the amended Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill back in this place?
	I think I have finally managed to discover something reliable about the Government: the regularity of their U-turns. On 14 February, I observed that with this Government we have a U-turn every 29 days. Following the Education Secretary’s embarrassing climbdown on GCSEs, I predicted that the next one was due to arrive on 8 March—a non-sitting Friday.

Therese Coffey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat. We cannot have points of order in the middle of business questions. There will be an opportunity for points of order in due course and there are plenty of opportunities to contribute, but not in the middle of business questions.

Angela Eagle: As I said, I predicted that the next U-turn was due on 8 March—a non-sitting Friday. Therefore, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my request that this U-turn be brought forward to a sitting day by agreeing to Labour’s urgent question on the NHS competition regulations, which the Government withdrew ignominiously on Tuesday? It may have arrived like clockwork, but that U-turn took a quarter of a million names on a petition, thousands of doctors protesting and outrage across the House before the Government saw sense and realised that the British public will not tolerate our NHS being privatised.
	The Leader of the House may recall that he told me last week that I was “not right” to say that the NHS competition regulations were a direct contradiction to the reassurances he gave during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Yet only yesterday, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported that the regulations are defective for precisely that reason. Will he now concede that he was wrong? Will he tell me when we can expect to see a new version of the regulations, and can we have them published in draft first, to avoid even more chaos? I am setting my clock for the next 29 days, but I make a plea to the Government: if I can predict their U-turns, then surely so can they. Could they, perhaps, just think through their policies a bit more before they announce them?
	Last week, I asked the Leader of the House to ensure that the Commons Committee stage of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill will not be completed before the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards has even published its second report. This week, we learned that the Government intend to railroad the Bill through the Commons Committee stage by 18 April, well before the second report is expected to be published. How can the Leader of the House seriously expect MPs to scrutinise a Bill that is still only half-written? Will he stand up for the rights of this House and delay the Committee stage until after the Banking Commission has reported?
	I am glad to see that our downgraded Chancellor has got his priorities right: he spent the week in Europe defending bankers’ bonuses. He gathered his allies around him ready for the fight and ended up in a minority of one. No one seems to respect the Chancellor anymore. Yesterday, the Business Secretary made a pre-emptive strike on the Prime Minister’s big economy speech by agreeing with the Opposition that we need a plan B, and
	the Governor of the Bank of England has accused the Chancellor of holding back the economy by not splitting up RBS. Most damningly, however, he has lost the respect of the British public, who see him ignoring the suffering of hard-working families, while he signs off six-figure tax cuts to 30,000 millionaires. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to start listening?
	While the Chancellor is acting as a shop steward for the rich, another union is growing in strength: the national union of Ministers, united in their determination to dump further cuts to their Departments somewhere else. The Defence Secretary seems to have emerged as the new Arthur Scargill; and, from reports of the slap-down of the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is emerging as the new Margaret Thatcher. Could the Leader of the House tell us whether the union is confident enough in its numbers to win a strike ballot? No wonder the Prime Minister has arranged to take a 28-day comfort break before he has to answer questions in the aftermath of the Budget statement.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her response to the business statement.
	I share the hon. Lady’s wish to mark international women’s day tomorrow. In that respect, I hope it is helpful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will make an important statement immediately following business questions. I am sure the hon. Lady and the House will also welcome this morning’s written ministerial statement by the Home Secretary informing the House that the violence against women and girls action plan will be published tomorrow, on international women’s day. That will enable us to underpin further the strategy we set out two and a half years ago, showing the progress we have made and demonstrating our ongoing commitment to ending violence against women and girls, which was also marked by the debates agreed by the Backbench Business Committee in the Chamber recently.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked when the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill would return here from another place. That depends on when those in another place finish their consideration. To my knowledge they have not yet done so, but we will see that in due course.
	I do not believe that the competition regulations as originally presented to this House were in any sense in conflict with the commitments given by Ministers. What is clear, however, is that those regulations are capable of being misunderstood and misrepresented—particularly the latter by the Opposition. In that respect, it is simpler and better to illustrate clearly two simple facts in the regulations. First, clinical commissioning groups have a duty, which overrides all other considerations, to secure the needs of their patients and the quality of services to their patients and to make choice available to them. Secondly, contrary to the situation under the last Government, in their “Principles and rules for co-operation and competition”, procurement should be conducted with a view to securing integrated services for patients. To that extent, what we are doing is based on the principles set out in early 2010 under the last Government,
	but we are enabling patients to be more confident that they will get integrated services responding to their needs with clinical leadership. That seems absolutely fine to me.
	The hon. Lady asked about bankers’ bonuses and all that. We have to be clear about this. The Opposition might not think it is important now, but in the past the Labour Government used to rely almost entirely on the proceeds of financial services in the City to fund all their expenditure. Now the Opposition seem to have ignored the fact that, notwithstanding that, we need a competitive financial services industry in this country. Labour seems to have ignored the fact that it did nothing about bankers’ bonuses, which were four times as great under the last Government than they are under this Government. The Opposition seem to have ignored the fact that what the European Parliament is proposing could have perverse results, leading to higher salaries rather than bonuses, adding to companies’ fixed costs and reducing both their capacity to claw back bonuses if there is poor performance and the flexibility that brings. This is not a debate in principle about whether bankers should have bonuses or about the level—we are dealing with that. The issue is whether they are structured in a way that allows poor performance to be penalised without adding to the problems of the industry’s competitiveness in Europe.
	The hon. Lady talked about U-turns. On a day when the Labour party is trying to contrive some kind of U-turn on its immigration policy, that was a bit of an own goal. I have not heard the shadow Leader of the House get up and apologise for the fact that the last Government simply lost control and ended up with a net migration figure of 250,000 a year. The coalition Government set themselves the task of bringing that net number down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, and the figures published last week demonstrate that net migration has fallen by a third in the past two and a half years. That shows that, in this respect as in so many others, the coalition Government are delivering on their promises.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, dozens of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement to follow from the Secretary of State for International Development, and then important proceedings on the Justice and Security Bill, so we are time-constrained. I must therefore exhort colleagues from the Back and Front Benches alike to speak pithily, beginning with Dr Thérèse Coffey.

Therese Coffey: The A14 links my constituency with that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Will he allow a debate in Government time on road tolling, in that area but also more widely?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend and I share a close interest in this matter, and I declare a constituency interest. I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend at the Department for Transport. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I know that the Government will take the opportunity to discuss this matter with the House ere long.

Valerie Vaz: May we have an urgent debate, or at least a statement, on the marine conservation zones? Given that £8.8 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on consultation, and 127 such zones have been proposed, could the Leader of the House find out when all 127 of them will be designated?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady was no doubt in the Chamber for questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That subject might have been raised in the course of those questions, but I hope she will forgive me for not being here at the time, so I do not know whether it was. If it was not, and if she particularly wishes to pursue the matter, may I suggest that she seeks an Adjournment debate in order to do so?

Anne McIntosh: You were incredibly kind to try to accommodate everybody in DEFRA questions, Mr Speaker. In the light of recent events, including the ash tree disease, chalara, and all that has happened over food adulteration, will the Leader of the House see fit to review the time allocated to questions to the Church Commissioners and, especially, to questions to DEFRA, so that we can go back to having the full hour for DEFRA questions that we once enjoyed?

Andrew Lansley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. These matters are discussed through the usual channels and determined by the House collectively. I will of course take the opportunity to discuss with colleagues whether there is a case for any change.

Dave Watts: May we have a debate on the millionaires’ tax cut, and can it be led by the Prime Minister so that he can clarify whether he will benefit directly from the cut?

Andrew Lansley: The Opposition have decided to debate tax fairness next week, so the hon. Gentleman might like to contribute to that debate. Government Members will also be able to contribute to it, and to highlight the fact that somebody on the minimum wage who is working a full week will have seen their income tax halved under this Government as a result of the increase in the personal allowance.

Michael Crockart: Today is world book day, and children up and down the country are going to school dressed as their favourite characters. I have joined in by dressing as Andrew Fraser, the Social Democratic party MP for Edinburgh Carlton in Jeffrey Archer’s book, “First Among Equals”, who ends up in a coalition Government in this very House. May we have a statement from the Department for Education on what it is doing to support school libraries, to ensure that such outlandish and far-fetched works of fiction are available to all?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that I am not alone in having found the school library my favourite place to be when I was at school. My hon. Friend might not realise that I, too, am in costume. I am taking the part of the Chief Whip—with apologies to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury—in my good friend Michael Dobbs’ book “House of Cards”. I am dressed as such.

Caroline Lucas: May we please have an urgent debate on the plight of Shaker Aamer, who remains the last British resident incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay? He is still there after 11 years. We have heard sympathetic statements from the Foreign Secretary, and the US and the UK are both saying that he has been cleared for release. We need to know why we do not seem to have enough influence to get this man back. He has never been charged with any crime, and he has been there for 11 years.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure the hon. Lady is as aware as many others in the House are of the representations that Her Majesty’s Government have been making about those in Guantanamo Bay. I will of course ask my colleagues in the Foreign Office to respond directly to her about the issue she has raised, and she may like to raise it further at Foreign Office questions.

Lee Scott: Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in Government time on the plight of the Tamil people at the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka and the innocent women and children who were murdered and lost their lives?

Andrew Lansley: I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concern and his repeated efforts to support the Tamils who have suffered in the way he describes. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I will draw what he said to the attention of my ministerial colleagues and get them to respond directly to him.

Tom Greatrex: In a written question on 20 December 2011, I asked the Department for Work and Pensions about the number of people who had died while waiting for an appeal on their work capability assessments and received an answer that up until October 2011 there were 30. I asked the same question on 27 June last year and was told that up to the end of April 2012 there were 32. Last week, I received an answer from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) to the same question, worded in the same way, but with the period extended until the end of 2012, and was told that the information was not available. Those answers cannot all be correct. Given either that the earlier ones were inaccurate or that the later one was evasive, may we have an urgent statement from that Minister on the veracity of his answers to written questions?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment in detail on that without notice, but I will of course talk to colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to see whether we can establish the reasons behind the different answers in respect of different periods.

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend mentioned migration and I congratulate the Government on reducing net migration by a third. May we have a statement on how local education authorities can authenticate requests by parents from other EU countries for school places for their children? I understand that Bournemouth borough council—no different from other councils—has no requirement or indeed resource to check whether those parents are working legitimately in the UK. The system is subject to abuse.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an issue that many hon. Members feel we should take an early opportunity to report on. I know that my colleagues are working hard on a range of issues about access to benefits and services. That work is ongoing and will be reported to the House in due course. I will make sure that my hon. Friend is made aware of any response to the particular issue he raises.

Nigel Dodds: May we have a statement or debate in Government time in the near future on the uptake of benefits, particularly among senior citizens whose poverty levels run well over 15% higher in some regions? Senior citizens in Northern Ireland are missing out on up to £1 million a week by not taking up benefits, so more needs to be done to encourage take-up.

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to raise that matter with Work and Pensions Ministers on Monday. If I may say so, this Government have worked hard to try to secure that. I am aware that one of the benefits—if I can be forgiven the pun—of universal credit is that it will establish a more secure basis to give people access to the benefits to which they are entitled.

Gavin Williamson: This week, we had the fantastic news that Jaguar Land Rover is going to invest a further £150 million, creating an extra 700 jobs at the engine plant that the company is building in my South Staffordshire constituency. May we have a debate on how we can continue to build on the success of the automotive industry, which is bringing such benefits not just to the west midlands but to the whole UK economy?

Andrew Lansley: It was encouraging news to hear about the 10% increase in new car sales over the course of the earliest part of this year in comparison with the previous year. What is also tremendously encouraging about Jaguar Land Rover is its dramatic success in international markets and exports. The fact that that has been reflected in the investment in the engine plant near Wolverhampton which my hon. Friend mentioned is something that is greatly supported right across the House.

Jim Fitzpatrick: May we have a statement from the Government about when they will sign the maritime labour convention? Enough countries signed last August to make it international law this August, and the UK Chamber of Shipping and others are warning that our failure to do so would seriously disadvantage British shipping internationally. The Government support the measure and led the negotiations on it at the International Maritime Organisation, but for some reason it is mired in bureaucratic difficulty between Departments. I should be very grateful if the Leader of the House would look into the matter, and tell us whether we can have a statement.

Andrew Lansley: I know of the support that the Government have given to the negotiations. I hope that one of my roles can involve entering the innards of that bureaucracy to try to ensure that the process works more smoothly and effectively. I will of course inquire of my colleagues to see what we can do to help the hon. Gentleman, and to succeed in the way that he describes.

Andrew Selous: May we have an urgent debate on the uncontrolled immigration that was allowed by the last Government and, in particular, on the effect that it has had in reducing the wages of the lower paid? This is a serious issue, given people’s current problems with the cost of living, and it needs to be looked into urgently.

Andrew Lansley: In the last quarter, there has been a large rise in employment among UK nationals and a substantially smaller growth in employment among non-UK nationals. While we must ensure that those who come here to work are not subject to abuse in the sense of being paid less than the minimum wage or experiencing other poor conditions, I think we can feel increasingly confident that we are enabling more people in this country who are seeking jobs to acquire them.

John Robertson: May we have a debate, or at least a statement, on the current plight of those who pay electricity bills? We have heard that the big six are raising their prices again, and now we hear that they are also making excessive profits. Is it not time that we did something about that?

Andrew Lansley: The Energy Bill has completed its Committee stage and will return to the Floor of the House in due course, when it will become clear to the hon. Gentleman that—as we have discussed previously—the Government are taking the power to require that consumers are given access to the lowest tariffs available. That, along with the electricity market reform which is encapsulated in the Bill, is a tremendous step forward.

Philip Davies: My right hon. Friend will be aware of today’s ruling in the High Court about the children’s heart unit at Leeds general infirmary. I am sure that he would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who have campaigned so vigorously on the issue, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), whose campaigning has been outstanding. Will he also ensure that a Minister comes to the House as soon as possible to make a statement about the implications of the ruling, and about how the Government intend to proceed from now on?

Andrew Lansley: I pay tribute to Members who, as my hon. Friend has said, have been assiduous in supporting their constituents and expressing their concerns. Those concerns are understandable, but let me reiterate that—as I think has been widely acknowledged—it is necessary to reduce the number of units responsible for children’s heart surgery in order deliver sustainable, secure, high-quality care for those children in the future.
	It is clear from this morning’s decision that, while the judge has determined that the application for judicial review must succeed, what that means in terms of an order relating to the process itself is for future determination. I think it best for me to wait and see what the judge says in relation to the process before pressing my colleagues to make any kind of statement about how the joint committee of primary care trusts might proceed.

Tom Harris: Whatever urgent debates the Leader of the House wants to arrange for next week, I must tell him that I may not be present, because the Independent Parliamentary Standards
	Authority has cancelled my travel card on the basis that I failed to submit my January conciliation form. It was submitted—I know that, because according to the online system it is “awaiting validation”, so it is clear that someone in IPSA has seen the form and typed those words—but IPSA has cancelled the card nevertheless.
	It is unacceptable when this terminally abominable, incompetent organisation fails to pay the simplest expenses, but surely, when it starts to interfere with MPs’ ability to come to the House and return to their constituencies, that is something about which the Leader of the House and every Member should be concerned.

Mr Speaker: I understood what the hon. Gentleman said. I think he is seeking a statement or debate on the matter. [Interruption.] I know he wants his card back, but that does not of itself render his remarks orderly. They will be rendered orderly if there is a request for a debate and I am sure there was such a request; I probably just did not hear it.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure we all want to enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s presence here next week. To that effect, I will draw directly to the attention of IPSA the points he has made and the cautious and modest way in which he expressed himself. I think there are other Members across the House who have found themselves in similar circumstances and who have some sympathy with him.

Bernard Jenkin: I rise somewhat nervously to draw attention to a widespread concern about the conduct of the Government’s business. I am sure the Leader of the House would join me in congratulating the Backbench Business Committee on providing time to debate an aspect of the Francis report, but when are we going to have a full day’s debate in Government time on the Francis report? The Leveson inquiry gave rise to just such a debate in Government time. Surely our relations with the press are less important than what has happened at Mid Staffordshire hospital and its implications for the health service as a whole. We would not want the House of Commons to give the wrong impression about what we think is important.

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure I agree with my hon. Friend that the debate the Backbench Business Committee has scheduled for Thursday of next week is on one aspect of the Francis inquiry report. I think it is about accountability and transparency in the national health service. He will have seen on the Order Paper the nature of the motion presented. I do not think it constrains debate at all, and it is perfectly appropriate for us to proceed on the basis of the House considering this matter next Thursday, as the business papers make clear. I hope my colleagues will respond to the Francis inquiry in the course of this month, which in itself will give us a basis for considering what processes follow from that.

Andy Sawford: More than 40 employment agencies are operating in Corby, which is disproportionate. Having met representatives of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills this week, I am particularly concerned that there are now plans to cut the employment agency standards inspectorate,
	which protects the most vulnerable in my community, particularly in workplaces. May we have a debate on this?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman may by all means seek to secure an Adjournment debate on these issues, and I will certainly talk to my BIS colleagues about the points he raises, but in this context he might like to celebrate the fact that employment in this country has risen by over 800,000 since the election and more than 1 million private sector jobs have been created. If his constituency’s experience is contrary to the national trend, he might like to consider what further measures to stimulate employment will be needed in his constituency, especially as the area in general is seeing employment growth.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Justice Secretary about the need to restore honesty in sentencing, with particular reference to the fact that convicted terrorists stand to benefit from being released halfway through their sentences, with the extra burden that will inevitably place earlier than necessary on the police and security services?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend knows, the type and length of a sentence imposed is a matter for the courts, but severe maximum penalties, including life sentences, are available for terrorism offences and terrorists frequently receive long custodial sentences. He will also know that extended sentences imposed on those convicted of a specified terrorist offence attract eligibility for parole consideration at the two-thirds point of the custodial period, with automatic release only once the custodial period has been served in full. I can assure him that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is keen to ensure public protection and keeps these matters under close review.

Bill Esterson: The Children and Families Bill has much to commend it, but as it goes through Committee the bedroom tax will hit foster carers, adoptive parents, disabled children and some children with special educational needs, all of whom stand to benefit from the provisions in the Bill. Will the Leader of the House use his influence to protect the children affected by the bedroom tax so that the widely supported measures in the Bill are not completely undermined by actions elsewhere in government?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, the Children and Families Bill has a great deal to commend it, including its important provisions for the support of families with children with special educational needs. I am sure that he was in the Chamber and heard the responses given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a series of questions yesterday. My right hon. Friend made it clear that we must understand not only the context of the £23 billion that is payable in housing benefit and the need to deal with that but how the change is being undertaken in a fair way. It is important to recognise that it brings the social housing sector into line with practice in the private rented sector in a way that offers not only access to a hardship fund but specific exemptions for some of the most vulnerable categories of tenants.

Tony Baldry: May we have a debate on the perspicacious and insightful fifth report of the Procedure Committee, which recommends that the Second Church Estates Commissioner and the other colleagues who answered questions earlier today should be allowed to make statements to the House on serious matters of national importance?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, and, if I may, I will seek time, as it is our practice to do, to try to secure an opportunity for the House to consider matters recommended by Select Committees relating to House business. We will discuss that through the usual channels in the normal way, but I entirely recognise my hon. Friend’s point, although, as he will recognise, only in extremely rare circumstances will it be felt appropriate for such a statement to be made.

Iain Wright: The Leader of the House has already, in passing, mentioned exports and it is vital that economic recovery, when it finally comes, should be export-led. Sterling’s recent dramatic fall in value should, at the very least, help the competitiveness of our exports, but net trade actually fell in the last quarter and the Bank of England has described our trade performance as disappointing. May we therefore have a debate on the crucial subject of trade and exports to see how the Government can raise their game?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not have a policy for the value of the pound in international markets. We have a policy to support growth, enterprise and employment in this country and we can see how employment has increased and how we are supporting the private sector in wealth creation through deregulation measures, the reduction of corporate tax rates and the dramatic increase announced by the Chancellor in access to investment allowances. There are issues with exports, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, because of the dramatic reduction in demand in the eurozone, which is hitting so many economies that are dependent on it. At the same time, in the first two years of this Government, British exports of goods have increased by 47% to China, by 33% to India, by 33% to Brazil and by 134% to Russia. As he rightly says, we need therefore to focus on stimulating that activity. The Chancellor’s autumn statement gave very specific additional support to UK Trade & Investment to do exactly that.

Edward Leigh: Yesterday was estimates day, and as usual we voted through countless billions of pounds of public expenditure with no vote and no debate. Yesterday, however, something different happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) tried to talk about estimates on estimates day, but he was immediately ruled out of order and told to get back to medical implants. As it happens, we have produced a report for the Chancellor on how to improve the accountability of estimates to Parliament and it is sitting in the Library. May we have a debate in Government time about how we can talk about estimates on estimates day?

Andrew Lansley: I was present in the House and I think my hon. Friend is referring to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) said that
	he believed that if he had sought to talk about estimates, he would have been ruled out of order, although I do not believe that the Chair issued any ruling at all. As the House will know, the determination of the subjects for debate on those two estimates days was conducted by the Liaison Committee. I have read the report published by my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Southport. There is a fair point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I have discussed on the Public Accounts Commission, about improving and enhancing the scrutiny of public expenditure by this House in a number of ways. I shall not talk about what they might be, but I share the view that we should find an opportunity in the future to try to enhance that.

Derek Twigg: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the House and make an urgent statement so that we can do a fact check on his answer to me yesterday, which was inaccurate when he claimed that severely disabled children, pensioners and people needing round-the-clock care were exempt from the council tax? With reference to children, those families with a second spare bedroom will face the bedroom tax. The only reason that some severely disabled children are exempted is a Court of Appeal ruling which, perversely, the Government are challenging.

Andrew Lansley: I think that when the hon. Gentleman referred to council tax, he was referring to housing benefit. [Interruption.] Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman and I heard what the Prime Minister said, and the Prime Minister is assiduous in ensuring that what he says to the House is accurate. If ever what he said was not accurate, he would of course correct it.

Stuart Andrew: There is glorious news coming from the High Court this morning that campaigners for the children’s heart unit have won their case against the review. It is a tremendous victory for the parents and families and I pay tribute to them. It clearly confirms the view that the review is flawed. The judge said that the review team made an ill-judged and fatal mistake in not revealing how the Kennedy sub-scores were compromised. Recognising that there will be a further judgment, may we have a statement on the day of that judgment or the very next day so that we can get the matter resolved once and for all for those patients?

Andrew Lansley: As I said before, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House who have been assiduous in representing their constituents’ interests. I will not repeat what I said, but there will be a follow-on decision by the Court relating to what this decision means in terms of the process itself. As the process is conducted not by the Government, but by an independent joint committee of primary care trusts, it will in the first instance be a matter for it. I would not encourage my hon. Friend to assume that it is the responsibility of Ministers at that moment to do other than to report the facts to the House. It is not their responsibility at this point to determine the progress of the review.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is still heavy pressure on time. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues but I must reissue my appeal for extreme brevity, hopefully to be exemplified by Mr Andrew Miller.

Andrew Miller: Will the Leader of the House organise an urgent debate on the use of English in the House, following the new euphemism that we heard yesterday, when the bedroom tax became the spare room subsidy? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Conservative party changed the community charge to the poll tax, it cost them a leader.

Andrew Lansley: When it comes to language in the House, we should first set out not to call things something that they are not. Calling something a tax when it is not a tax is not a good use of language.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motions 1097 and 1157 about the cost of petrol and diesel and fuel poverty?
	[That this House notes the action that the Government has taken to cut the cost of petrol and diesel, with a cut in fuel duty in 2011, two freezes in 2012 and the scrapping of the planned rise in January 2013; further notes, however, that rocketing fuel bills are causing misery for millions, and that this matters because fuel duty is a tax on everything, hitting food prices, bus prices and everyone who commutes to work; further notes that fuel duty hits the poorest the hardest, and that many workers in Harlow constituency and elsewhere are spending a tenth of their income just filling up the family car; and therefore calls on the Government to do everything in its power to stop the planned September rise in fuel duty and to help keep prices down.]
	May we have a debate on petrol prices and fuel poverty, following the report by the RAC Foundation that the poorest are paying 20% of their income to fill up the family car, whereas the richest are paying 10%?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I have seen the early-day motions to which my hon. Friend refers. I cannot promise an immediate debate but as he knows, this is a matter that we have considered in the House and no doubt we will have an opportunity to do so again soon. I know that he believes, as I do, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken important steps to ensure that petrol at the pumps is now 10p a litre lower in price than it would have been if the fuel escalator under the previous Government had been carried forward.

Helen Goodman: During the recess I tried to live on £18 a week, which is what my constituents will have once the bedroom tax is introduced. I found that I ran out of food before the end of the week. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the bedroom tax and its impact on nutrition?

Andrew Lansley: I think the House had an opportunity, on a motion tabled by the nationalist parties, to debate the housing benefit structure and the under-occupancy deduction. If the hon. Lady and her colleagues felt so strongly that that was the most important issue to debate, I am surprised that they did not choose to bring it forward for debate next Tuesday, as they could have done.

Tessa Munt: The Financial Services Authority authorised Barclays bank to use KPMG and Deloitte as independent reviewers of the 40,000 interest rate swap agreements mis-sold to small and medium-sized businesses. May we have a debate about the true independent City law firms, Eversheds and TLT, which Barclays is using as its fact finders to interview by phone, for sometimes up to three hours, many of the customers classified as “unsophisticated? They are discouraged from having their solicitors present, refused a transcript and often feel that they have been cross-examined. Those tactics mean that the bank’s lawyers might be breaching the solicitors’ code of conduct and only go to reinforce the bank’s reputation for bullying.

Andrew Lansley: I think that the House will share my hon. Friend’s concern about the companies that have been affected by interest rate swap mis-selling. I will not attempt to answer the question she rightly asks, but I will ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to write to her directly about it.

Barry Gardiner: The announcement earlier today about the permanent closure of Daw Mill colliery will have far-reaching consequences not only for the 650 people working there, E.ON, Ratcliffe power station and the 1.5 million tonnes of coal the colliery generated each year, but for the whole future of UK Coal, the British coal industry and the country’s energy supply. Why has the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change not seen fit to come to the House today to make a statement on the matter?

Andrew Lansley: I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of all those who responded so promptly to this major incident at Daw Mill colliery. It was, and continues to be, a serious incident. With regard to helping UK Coal, the Energy Minister met the company to discuss the matter on Monday, and a cross-Government team led by the Department of Energy and Climate Change is working with it. I will, of course, talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about when it will be appropriate to report to the House on the work the Government are doing, together with UK Coal, to respond to the situation.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on the importance of the City of London in creating jobs and wealth and, in particular, growing both public and private sector pensions, making Britain a wealthier country than it would be if we listened to the Opposition?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I am with my hon. Friend on that. I think that such a debate would be important, if the opportunity arose. It would be an occasion to discuss the issue, rather than trying to devise some political advantage, in circumstances in which everyone knows that it was the Labour party that was responsible for the banking crisis that has so afflicted this country. Instead of apologising for that, Labour Members are trying to take political advantage when they know perfectly well that we should actually be working together to ensure that we have effective regulation of the banks, including bankers’ bonuses and not the kind of regulation that could lead to higher costs and reduced competitiveness.

Ian Murray: Yesterday we saw a leaked internal report by the Scottish Government showing that even Scottish National party Ministers have huge concerns about the stability of the Scottish economy should Scotland become independent. May we have an urgent debate on the report, which would show once and for all that Scotland is better together?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I must confess that I was unaware of the report to which he refers, but I will certainly seek an opportunity to read it. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I think that, as we move towards to next year’s referendum, it is very important that we have the kind of debate he seeks in this House and across the country.

Mark Pawsey: Did the Leader of the House see the launch this week of the “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign here in Parliament? Given that the average family throws away food worth £270 each year, may we have a debate on raising awareness of the issue and on how effective packaging and labelling can reduce the amount of food wasted?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Throwing away food not used in time is costing consumers £6.7 billion a year—£270 for the average household. Only about one in seven consumers realises that packaging can play an important role in protecting food in our homes. The Fresher for Longer campaign launched earlier this week can do a great deal of good in reducing food waste and highlighting how people can ensure that they eat food that is in good condition.

William Bain: This week the Daycare Trust revealed that child care costs across Britain are rising by £5 a week, or 6%—twice the cost of living. May we have a statement on why the Government are still delaying bringing forward plans through the tax and benefits system to help families struggling with declining living standards and child care costs?

Andrew Lansley: I was interested in the figures published by the Daycare Trust and understand the concerns of many families. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will support not only the measures that have already been brought forward but those recently announced by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), which are designed to give families exactly that kind of help in meeting child care costs while maintaining quality.

John Glen: May we have a statement from the Minister responsible for the Defence Infrastructure Organisation? I remain very concerned that, in making the decision about the disposal of Wilton barracks, an optimistic assessment is being made of the local authority’s likely attitude towards excessive housing on the site when a locally supported bid has already met the needs of the local plan. It is crucial that local opinion is respected and that the Ministry of Defence does not accept a speculative bid that will not, in the end, be realisable.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an important point for his constituents, and I completely understand it. I am pleased to assure him that the Ministry of Defence did take local opinion into account before seeking
	outline planning consent. That consent has now been granted, and the site is being offered for sale on the open market by formal tender in a joint sale with a private landowner. My hon. Friend will understand that as the bids were received on 28 February and are being evaluated, they remain commercially confidential for now. However, I am told that the MOD is confident of a sale being completed shortly.

Andrew Gwynne: On 12 February, during the Environment Secretary’s statement on horsemeat, at column 742 of the Official Report, I asked him whether he had ordered the testing of gelatine and gelatine-based products for horse DNA given that they would extend to food such as children’s confectionery. The Secretary of State told the House that I had asked a good question but that these were matters for the Food Standards Agency. I therefore wrote to the agency immediately after the statement. To date, I am still awaiting an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. Will the Leader of the House secure a debate in Government time about the accountability of Executive agencies, as it seems that Ministers are unwilling to answer for agencies during statements and agencies are unwilling to reply to Members of this House?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course seek to help the hon. Gentleman in getting a reply to his question. However, the Food Standards Agency is not an Executive agency; it is a non-ministerial Government Department that is accountable to this House through Ministers at the Department of Health, of whom I used to be one, so I fully understand the matter. I will talk to my hon. Friends to secure the response that he is looking for.

Marcus Jones: I am sure that the whole House will be united in its support for the 650 workers of Daw Mill colliery and their families following today’s announcement by UK Coal of its decision to close the mine and suddenly make most of the work force redundant following the recent underground fire, which is yet to abate. I know that the Energy Minister is doing all that he can to support the work force during this difficult time. May we have a debate in Government time on energy policy and the vital role that the coal industry plays in the UK?

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand how concerned my hon. Friend is, as are other Members, about the circumstances of the continuing fire underground and the closure of Daw Mill colliery. Of course, jobs are at risk as a consequence of that, notwithstanding that they have been reduced in recent months through a process of voluntary redundancies. As I said, not only Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change but Ministers across the Government are seeking to work with UK Coal to try to ensure that we provide all the assistance we can. I hope that there will soon be an opportunity to update the House about what that response can be.

Jim Shannon: Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate or a statement on the recent disclosure that one in four of the UK’s top companies pays no tax at all, while an ordinary person on a lower wage continues to pay tax each and every week of the year?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the general anti-avoidance measure will come into force in April—an important strengthening of our reduction of tax avoidance. If the hon. Gentleman does not have the opportunity to discuss these issues beforehand, he might find that they are relevant to the debate on the Budget.

Greg Mulholland: We always knew that the decision to close the children’s heart surgery unit in Leeds was flawed, biased and unacceptably opaque, and today we have found out that it was unlawful. In addition, the safe and sustainable consultation as a whole has been declared unlawful and the conduct of the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts has been called into question and accused of failing in its duty. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we must have a statement in this House, because the whole review is now in chaos, and part of that statement should say that JCPCT members should never take part again in any consultation on major changes to the health service.

Andrew Lansley: The High Court’s decision on the failure to disclose the sub-scores of the Kennedy scoring system was announced only this morning, but the judge has not made a further decision on the implications for the review itself or on the order she might make in that regard. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that it would be premature for Ministers to make a statement. Indeed, it is not for Ministers to make a decision in the first instance, as this is an independent review conducted by primary care trusts. They should decide how to proceed once the court has made its decision.

Dennis Skinner: Twice the Leader of the House has given sympathy to those people at Daw Mill colliery who have lost their jobs. UK Coal owns other mines—not many, but they are still in business—and it may fold up completely as a result of the Daw Mill closure. It is one of the main employers left in the coal-mining industry. Do the Leader of the House and this Government want to be in power when the remaining part of the coal industry in England is closed down?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the closure at Daw Mill is the result of the catastrophic fire. I reiterate to him and the House that Ministers are in direct contact with UK Coal. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), met UK Coal on Monday and is co-ordinating a cross-Government response. Some 1,300 people are employed at UK Coal’s other sites, Thorseby and Kellingley, and the company believe that they remain viable operations. On that basis, it does them no good to speculate in a damaging way about the viability of those operations.

Peter Bone: May we have an urgent statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury so that he can inform the House to which media outlets the Liberal Democrats will leak the Budget? Right hon. and hon. Members will then know what papers to buy and what television programmes to watch.

Andrew Lansley: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that Treasury Ministers and others will respect the confidentiality of the Budget statement.

Andrew Stephenson: Over the past two years, Conservative-led Lancashire county council has approved the construction of four brand new primary schools: Laneshaw Bridge primary, a new Church school in Barnoldswick, St Paul’s primary and Whitefield infant school in Nelson, where I am a school governor. May we have a debate on investment in primary school buildings, so that I and other hon. Members can welcome these developments and raise the cases of other schools where investment is still needed?

Andrew Lansley: I think that many Members throughout the House will have been pleased by and welcomed the announcement by the Minister for Schools of additional funding for capital projects in schools. Lancashire county council has been allocated basic need funding totalling £112.6 million for the period 2011 to 2015 to support the provision of additional pupil places. In Lancashire, as in many places throughout the country, that will ensure that the condition of schools is improved. It also responds to the demographic pressure moving through the school system at the moment. It is very welcome.

John Pugh: Being prevented from talking about Government estimates on estimates day would have puzzled Franz Kafka. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the report on improving parliamentary scrutiny of the nation’s finances mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was actually commissioned by the Chancellor because he did not think that that scrutiny was good enough?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The report has been published, but it would be premature for me to say anything about how we might respond or take the issue forward. There is no question, however, but that we want to enhance scrutiny; this is not an Executive who want to inhibit it. In many ways, we have enhanced the scrutiny of the Executive by the House, and I hope that in this respect we can go further.

Philip Hollobone: Given that the number of applications from hon. Members for Adjournment debates always exceeds supply and given that we are now going to sit on Friday 22 March, will my right hon. Friend seek to enhance his reputation for parliamentary innovation by effectively making that day a Wednesday in Westminster Hall, so that there might be a full programme of Adjournment debates to enhance the House’s ability to hold Ministers to account.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that the House debated this matter and decided last night to sit on Friday 22 March in order to continue the Budget debate. It is scheduled for that purpose, and I know that many Members will want to contribute to that debate, so I would simply limit it to that.

Rehman Chishti: For the third year running, the NHS staff survey at Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency has reported an
	increase in the number of staff members experiencing bullying. Will the Leader of the House allow an urgent debate or statement on this matter?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend knows that the NHS staff survey this year shows an increased proportion of members of staff who feel they know how to raise issues, but unfortunately no corresponding increase—in fact, a very slight reduction—in the number who fear that their position might be prejudiced if they do so, although the majority still feel that they can and would raise these issues. As he knows, we have to arrive at a position where all staff feel entirely confident and empowered to raise any issues affecting the safety of patients and if necessary—although it should not be necessary—to blow the whistle if they are not being listened to.

Glyn Davies: In responding to a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), made clear his view that consideration of planning approval for onshore wind farms should take place at the same time as planning approval for essential associated infrastructure. In mid-Wales, however, a planning inspector appointed by the Minister has taken exactly the opposite view. May we have a statement outlining the Government’s position?

Andrew Lansley: I will ask the Minister of State to respond to my hon. Friend on that issue and, if there is any question of more general application, to report to the House.

UK’s Development Work (Girls and Women)

Justine Greening: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the UK’s international development work to support girls and women.
	Tomorrow, we will mark international women’s day, which takes place amidst the negotiations of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York. The focus of this year’s CSW is on eliminating all violence against women and girls and sending the strongest international signal that the routine, everyday violence perpetrated against girls and women globally must end. The outcome of this year’s CSW is by no means assured, however, and last year’s meeting failed to reach any conclusions, so the UK Government have been working tirelessly to avoid a similar outcome this year.
	This week, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), has been attending the meeting in New York, and last night I spoke to our ambassador to the United Nations to identify what more the UK could do. Both I and my hon. Friend have been playing our role in making the case for significantly upping our work in this area. We have also been making the necessary calls and co-ordinating supporters to get a successful outcome. We cannot afford to repeat the failure of last year.
	Alongside that key opportunity at the CSW, I want to inform the House of my intention to step up the UK Government’s support for girls and women in the world’s poorest countries. We have already helped to make great strides globally. Since 2011, our country has supported more than 2.5 million girls to go to primary school and a quarter of a million to make the transition to secondary school. We have helped nearly three quarters of a million women to access financial services, helped to secure property and land rights for nearly a quarter of a million women, and supported 1 million additional women to use modern methods of family planning.
	It is also appropriate this week to underline how urgent and great is the need for further sustained action. Around the world, one in three girls and women will be beaten or raped in their lifetime. Fewer than 20% of girls in sub-Saharan Africa have the chance to go to secondary school. A third of girls in the developing world marry before the age of 18, some as young as seven. Despite performing two thirds of the world’s work, women earn only 10% of the income and own only 1% of the property. Women represent only 20% of the world’s political leaders. I do not believe that there can be sustained development when only half a country’s population is involved.
	The evidence shows that when the potential of girls and women is unleashed, there are incredible returns for girls and women themselves, and for whole societies and economies. Investing in girls and women is the smart thing to do. An extra year of primary schooling for girls increases their wages by up to 20% and the return is even higher for secondary school. Such education means that women marry later and have fewer children, and that there are better health outcomes for the children they do have.
	Investing in women and girls is also the right thing to do. It is a matter of universal basic human rights. I believe that it represents the greatest unmet challenge of our time. The challenge is about three things to my mind: choice, so that girls and women can choose when they have children and how many; control, so that women and girls are free from violence and can take control of their working lives and incomes; and voice, so that girls and women can be heard and are able to speak out safely in their communities and at the national level. I intend to target DFID’s efforts relentlessly on improving the lives of the poorest girls and women in those crucial areas.
	On choice, we will honour the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made at the London summit on family planning last year. In addition, this week DFID is releasing funding for contraceptives that will help avert about 2.6 million unintended pregnancies, prevent the deaths of more than 4,500 women during pregnancy and childbirth, and avoid almost 65,000 infant deaths, and we will look to do more still.
	On Afghanistan, I have decided that the UK country plan will include tackling violence against women and girls as a country strategic priority. As troop draw-down takes place, gains must be built on and not lost.
	DFID is developing an ambitious new £35 million programme to combat female genital mutilation and cutting—the biggest ever investment in eradicating the practice. We want to help end the practice in a generation.
	I have established a research and innovation fund to drive forward successful initiatives to tackle violence against women and girls, and new programmes that respond to the specific needs of girls and women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syrian refugees.
	Later this year, I will launch an international call to action on violence against women and girls in humanitarian emergencies. An event in the autumn will bring agencies, donors and advocates together to ensure that we all collectively up our game. I have written to the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Valerie Amos, and the UN Secretary-General to call on them to put the needs of women and girls clearly at the heart of humanitarian programmes, including in Syria, where the number of refugees has passed the terrible 1 million landmark.
	Finally, on control, the ability of girls and women to earn an income and control how they spend it is also essential, but the evidence on what works in this area urgently needs building. That is why I have just launched a new partnership with the World Bank for a “gender innovation lab” to test what works in terms of giving girls and women control over their economic lives. On participation, research clearly demonstrates that women’s political participation achieves real changes. So I have agreed funding for a new leadership for change programme, supporting the leadership skills of girls and women and the opportunities for them to make a difference in their local communities and nationally.
	As we continue our work on those issues, we will also reach out to new partners. I know that we cannot simply preach to the converted; we need to do what works, working with whoever we can to make it work on the ground. I am therefore establishing an expert advisory group on girls and women, involving people from different worlds and including leaders from the human rights community, the private sector and civil society to help shape my Department’s work in this area.
	During our G8 presidency, we are working across government in support of the Foreign Secretary’s vital preventing sexual violence initiative to ensure that G8 members sign up to pledges on this unacceptably neglected issue. On the post-2015 agenda, we will work to ensure that issues of voice, choice and control for girls and women are central in the new framework. I believe that is critical if we are to become the generation that eradicates absolute poverty.
	Britain needs to play a leading role globally, not just by effort but by example. We must all ask the searching questions and never turn a blind eye to women treated unacceptably in our own country. Yesterday’s shocking EU report highlighted that there are 65,000 victims of female genital mutilation in the UK and a further 30,000 at risk. I pay tribute to the work that my ministerial colleague the International Development Under-Secretary has done, not just at home, but abroad, in tackling this issue. However, we have to be prepared to fight that battle here in the UK as well as internationally. So I believe that today, the day the before international women’s day, is a key opportunity for the House to come together in support of seeking irreversible gains in rights for girls and women and an end to violence for girls and women. I know that hon. Members will wish to send a collective signal of support for this goal—they will want it to come not just from the Government, but from Parliament as a whole—and I commend this statement to the House.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement, and from the outset may I make it clear that we support the important work that she and the Foreign Secretary are doing on the crucial issues of the rights of girls and women, and tackling violence against women?
	It is an indisputable fact that there is a direct correlation between women’s rights and progress in developing countries, especially in conflict-ridden and fragile states. Of course, sustainable investment matters, which is why I want to begin by asking the Secretary of State how she can justify the Tory-led Government’s consistent failure to enshrine the UK’s 0.7% commitment in law. Last Friday, a Tory Back Bencher once again blocked the progress of the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick). May I remind the right hon. Lady that her party’s election manifesto promised to legislate on this in the first Session of Parliament? Is it not time she reminded her Back Benchers —left, centre and Tea party—that they each stood on that manifesto at the last election? If the measure is not in the Queen’s Speech, that will be not only a broken promise, but yet more evidence that although the Prime Minister may still be in office, he is no longer in power.
	On the eve of international women’s day, it is right that we think about how UK aid can be focused to address the scourge of violence against women and girls. On my most recent visit to eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo with World Vision, I saw for myself the terrible impact that sexual violence has on the lives of women, their families and their communities. One woman told me how three soldiers from a militia group had gang-raped her and left her for dead. In the same attack her husband and three children were taken away and she never saw them again. Every day, that woman and many
	like her cope with emotional and physical scars that may lessen over time but will never heal. It is essential that we tackle the culture of impunity, as well as the underlying causes of violence against women. More needs to be done to help women whose lives are blighted by violence and conflict. Will the Secretary of State say what her Department is doing to encourage the involvement of women in peacemaking and political reconciliation design and processes, and in bringing to justice those who use rape as a weapon of war?
	International co-operation and co-ordination to prevent sexual violence in conflict on the ground is central to any response. What are the Government doing to address the fact that action against gender-based violence internationally remains chronically underfunded? Will she join me in expressing support for the One Billion Rising campaign led by Eve Ensler? Organisations such as UN Women have great potential but they do not have the long-term financial support required to fulfil their important mandate. The aim is to join up the work done across the UN on gender equality and women’s empowerment, pooling resources to increase its impact and reach. As a member of the UN Women executive, will the Secretary of State tell the House what steps the UK Government are taking to encourage other donors—private or public—to help ensure that UN Women has the core funding it needs to continue its work and support women’s empowerment and gender equality?
	I am reassured to hear that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is taking a leading role in UN negotiations on the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York. Will she please clarify what specific outcomes she is seeking to achieve and what criteria she will use to judge success?
	The Secretary of State is right to focus on giving women choice through quality educational opportunities and access to essential family planning and education programmes that will help avert unintended pregnancies and prevent deaths. As she is aware, however, US restrictions specifically related to abortion mean that humanitarian aid managed by the International Committee of the Red Cross cannot be used—shamefully—for victims of rape. Norway has made a bilateral request to the US that it lift the abortion ban on humanitarian aid for women raped in war as a matter of US compliance with the Geneva conventions. Will the UK follow Norway’s example and make similar representations to our US allies?
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of a new programme to combat female genital mutilation. Like I and every Member of the House she will have been horrified by the statistics that were revealed this week. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development who has worked over a long period to highlight an issue that has not been given enough attention in the past. In that context, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to end the practice in the UK, working with colleagues across the Government, and how can we go further and provide protection against forced marriages and domestic abuse?
	Finally, I am reassured to hear that the Secretary of State is prioritising women’s rights and empowerment in discussions on a new post-2015 development framework.
	Does she agree that only a clear focus in that new framework on inequality and human rights will ensure an end to the exploitation of women across the world?

Justine Greening: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman started his remarks in a tone that did not particularly fit my statement, but in response to his question, it is the Government’s intention to enshrine the aid target of 0.7% in law. I emphasise, however, that we have already been getting on with that this year.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman had a chance to visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and he rightly spoke about the need to tackle some of the underlying root causes linked to attitudes and social norms. Such factors are one reason why it is particularly challenging to make progress in this area. We cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach and our work must be country-specific and tailored to the needs of that country. That is precisely what we do, and we are working in about 20 countries. A good example of such work is the Tawanmandi programme that the Government have supported in Afghanistan. It works with a number of community groups but sits alongside work nationally to strengthen women’s participation at a political level.
	We must also work—as we do—to strengthen justice systems so that when crimes take place there is no sense of impunity for those crimes, and steps can be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice. We have all seen the shocking statistics about the lack of justice for women who suffer sexual violence during conflicts, which is why the Foreign Secretary is right to champion this issue.
	My Department has supported the One Billion Rising campaign, and I am delighted to say that the online petition on our website has been signed by nearly 30,000 people. It is an important matter, which is why the CSW is right to focus this year on eradicating violence against women.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of UN Women. It is still a relatively new organisation, having been set up in 2011. It is an amalgamation of some existing UN agencies that have worked in the area of women’s rights. I have spoken with Michelle Bachelet on a couple of occasions about the work that UN Women does. She is clear that the organisation needs to reform in order to be able to work more effectively at the UN level and in terms of its programmes at country level.
	As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have introduced the multilateral aid review, which systematically looks at the effectiveness of taxpayer money as used via multilateral organisations such as UN Women. That organisation was not in existence the last time we carried out that review, but I hope that it will get a good score in the next MAR. We are working with UN Women to ensure that it can achieve that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about our aspirations for the CSW. If he has read the draft conclusions being debated in New York this week and next, he will see that they are strong conclusions and we should resist any watering down, although we should also recognise the element of negotiation in the process. I can assure him that the work that we have done in public and private includes lobbying; cajoling countries that often stay silent to speak up; and encouraging like-minded countries
	that are in favour of the CSW’s conclusions to work together. That work has seen a significant increase this year compared with previous years. It would be a significant backward step for women’s rights if we were to fail to reach good, strong conclusions at this year’s CSW, and we are working towards reaching those conclusions.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about abortion. We all recognise how sensitive that issue is, but the UK has often been one of a handful of donors who are prepared to fund work to ensure that women can have safe abortions, especially when they have become pregnant through violence and in conflict situations. We recognise that this is a sensitive area for other countries, but I can assure him that we raise our concerns. It is an important area, and the UK can be proud that in spite of it being a sensitive issue we have ensured that we provide support to women who need it in that situation.

Jane Ellison: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is incredibly heartening and we are all very encouraged by it. I especially welcome what she said about female genital mutilation. In the last few years through the all-party group, I have had the privilege of meeting some fantastic grass-roots campaigners from Africa. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we will support these amazing people—mostly women—working in country and with diaspora communities, to find out what really works on the ground and to back them up in their brave and important fight?

Justine Greening: We are supporting the UN joint programme in work in this area. My hon. Friend is right: some of the strongest advocates in ending FGC are those people who have themselves suffered. It is a terrible practice. Interestingly, it is not a religious practice, and we can enlist the support of religious leaders in making the case in their communities about why this practice should end. It is worth saying that the EU report published yesterday confirms that work remains to be done right here in the UK, and we must not shy away from that.

Sheila Gilmore: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but a lot of the aims are being put at grave risk by continuing sexual violence in conflict situations. Strengthening the terms of the draft arms treaty is one thing that could make a difference. What discussions is the Department having with the Foreign Secretary on this important matter?

Justine Greening: I assure the hon. Lady that the Department has discussions with the Foreign Office, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State leads that work. She is right that the focus on women and girls, particularly in relation to the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, must run through the Government’s work, not just in DFID but in other Departments too, and that is why I welcome the Foreign Secretary championing the initiative. It will also be on our G8 agenda; we will be beating the drum to ensure that other G8 members sign up to that effort and join us.

Lorely Burt: I wholeheartedly welcome the statement. I am proud of the work that the Government are doing to lead the world on gender equality, and in particular I commend the Under-Secretary of State for
	International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), for her work in New York. However, we must ensure that other countries play their part. The Prime Minister is co-chairing the high-level panel to devise the next set of millennium development goals in Bali later this month. Will the Secretary of State urge him, in that leading role, to press for a stand-alone goal on gender equality and women’s empowerment?

Justine Greening: I have been clear that I believe we need a stand-alone goal, and that we need to see these issues right the way through any new development framework. As my hon. Friend knows, the debate on what the new development framework should be once the millennium development goals come to an end in 2015 is at an early stage, but I can reassure her that, having been to the first two meetings in London and with the Prime Minister in Liberia, there is an understanding that it is vital for the issue of gender, which was in one of the MDGs in the first development framework, to be in the next framework.

Jonathan Ashworth: I would like to press the Secretary of State a little further on the issue of Syrian refugees, which she touched on in her statement. The number of refugees has now hit the 1 million mark, and two-thirds of them are women and children. The UN has said that it lacks the funds necessary to deal with the crisis. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that the UK
	“will seek new ways to relieve the humanitarian crisis”.—[Official Report, 6 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 962.]
	Will she elaborate a little further on what that will involve? Does she anticipate the UK increasing its financial contribution to the aid effort?

Justine Greening: The UK has played a leading role not only in providing financial and humanitarian assistance to help alleviate the suffering of the 1 million refugees and, in addition, the many displaced people within Syria, but in beating the drum for other countries to step up to the plate. The Kuwait conference I attended a few weeks ago saw Arab nations, in particular, begin to put in significant funding. The hon. Gentleman asks what more we can do. I am prepared to do more. Unfortunately, if we continue to see refugees streaming across the Syrian border into neighbouring countries, it is likely that we will need to do more. As I said in my statement, I raised formally at the UN the issue of how we deal with women and girls. That needs to be carefully thought through and never missed in our humanitarian work. From looking at similar situations, such as in Haiti, we know that it is easy for the plight of women and girls to be missed. They are never more vulnerable than in such situations. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue, and I assure him that we are raising it in the UN to ensure that the risks are mitigated wherever possible.

Nicola Blackwood: I congratulate the International Development Secretary on her statement, which clearly demonstrates the UK’s commitment to women’s rights around the world. I particularly welcome her commitment to tackling violence against women as a strategic priority for Afghanistan. Does she agree that we should ensure that human rights
	defenders and women in public office in Afghanistan are protected? They are particularly targeted for abuse and violent intimidation when they stand up for women’s rights. These women are our allies in ensuring and improving women’s rights in Afghanistan and we should be doing more to protect and support them.

Justine Greening: In short, I agree with my hon. Friend. Some of the most courageous people I have met during my time in this role were the women I met when I went to Afghanistan at the end of last year. They are amazing women who are literally putting their lives on the line to stand up for women’s rights in Afghanistan. They should be supported in doing that, which is precisely why I believe it is now time to make this issue a more strategic priority in the work DFID does in Afghanistan.

Anne Begg: Last Friday I took part in an event at Aberdeen university which showed a moving film called “Sister”, which highlighted the reality for pregnant women in developing countries. The film was a graphic demonstration of why millennium development goal 5, on maternal health, is still some way from being met. What action are the Government taking to improve maternal health in developing countries and increase the survival rates of women and their babies?

Justine Greening: Interestingly, in spite of all the progress that has been mentioned, there is a huge issue, with issues in childbirth and pregnancy still representing the largest reason for death among girls aged 15 to 19 in developing countries. We are addressing that through a range of health interventions in many programmes, but also through family planning, as I have said, and, critically, education. We know that the better educated women become, particularly if they not only get to primary school, but go on to secondary school, the later they start their families and the healthier those families will be. However, there is still a huge amount of work to be done in this area, and that is what we are getting on with.

Tony Baldry: I think the whole House will welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does she agree that all the millennium development goals are important in supporting women and girls? For example, on water and sanitation, if girls have appalling sanitation when they go to school, they will be less inclined to stay there. They will drift away from school and remain illiterate. Some 40% of girls in countries such as Ethiopia are illiterate; therefore, our family planning and other initiatives tend to fall on deaf ears and those girls miss out on life chances. When we look at post 2015, we need to ensure that we take all the millennium development goals forward and not cherry-pick one or another. They are a comprehensive set that all need to be taken forward if we are to support women and girls.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right. Recently I saw some research showing that while men in developing countries viewed water and sanitation as their seventh highest priority, for women it was number two. Interestingly, I think I am right in saying that the No. 1 priority for both men and women was getting a job. I will be making a speech next week about how DFID can help to make that happen.

Kerry McCarthy: When I asked about the arms trade treaty at Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, I was assured that although no DFID Minister was going to the talks later this month, they were very much taking an interest in it, working the phones and so on. I was therefore concerned by the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), which implied that the issue is simply not on her radar at all, when it is so important to the matters addressed by her Department, such as poverty among women and gender-based violence. Can I urge her to give it real priority?

Justine Greening: I can assure the hon. Lady that I do give the issue priority. I am making a statement today precisely because I think that the issue of women and girls is so important in all aspects. I hope she can welcome that. To reiterate, I take her point on board. I regularly meet the Foreign Secretary to discuss the work our two Departments do together and I can assure her that this is precisely the sort of issue I discuss with him.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the excellent job she is doing and on today’s statement. On the issue of abortion, although I completely understand that women who are subject to sexual violence and other issues that bring about unwanted babies might want access to abortions, will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be strict criteria for the use of British taxpayers’ money for abortions and that it will not be for abortion on demand?

Justine Greening: I think I can provide that assurance. Our involvement has not been about the rights and wrongs of abortion. In countries where abortion is permitted, and where we can support programmes that make safe abortion possible rather than allowing unsafe abortions, that is what we have focused on.

Eilidh Whiteford: I very much welcome today’s statement. Earlier this week, I chaired a joint meeting of the all-party parliamentary groups on international development and the environment and on water and sanitation in developing countries. We learned that, notwithstanding the huge progress that has been made on access to water, sanitation and hygiene, women and girls are consistently and substantially left behind when we measure success, not least because of the taboos around menstruation and childbirth. Are the Government confident that the ways in which they intend to measure the effectiveness of their new initiatives will fully capture their impact on women and girls and uphold their basic rights and dignities?

Justine Greening: I am confident, but there is a lot of work to be done. At a basic level, we are now focusing on gender-disaggregated data, so that we can understand the impact of our programmes in terms not only of overall value for money but of how they impact on men and on women. That is a significant programme of work for us. The hon. Lady is right to highlight this point, and we are increasingly starting to look at how our programmes affect women and girls explicitly.

Sarah Newton: With the support of DFID, ShelterBox, a very good charity based in Cornwall, is delivering practical support to refugees in Syria and Lebanon. What more can be done to support the women and girls who are fleeing from the dreadful atrocities in Syria—particularly the sexual violence that is being committed against them?

Justine Greening: There are a number of things. First, we must ensure that we have human rights monitors who are able to go into Syria so that we can find out for ourselves what is happening on the ground. Secondly, many of the women who are leaving are by that stage the head of their household as their husbands are no longer with them, and we must ensure that they get not only the care, often medical care, that they need but counselling for the trauma that they—and, often, their children—have gone through in order to make it to the refugee camps.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome every word of the Secretary of State’s statement, but I want to dispute one letter. She spoke of setting up an expert advisory group on girls and women. Will she also ensure that it is an expert advisory group of girls and women? Perhaps it could include people such as my constituent Samira Khalil, a young woman from an Afghani family who was educated in Brent North and is now studying at Cambridge, or Faisa Mohamoud, who works for the Help Somalia Foundation and who could tell the right hon. Lady a thing or two about female genital mutilation and how it affects that community. Let us make sure that it is a women-led group with women’s experience at the heart of it.

Justine Greening: I suspect that it will be women-led, although there will be no absolute bar on men being involved.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her excellent and very encouraging statement. Does she welcome the warm endorsement that Kate Allen, the head of Amnesty International, gave to the Government’s policies on women and girls on Monday?

Justine Greening: Yes, I was delighted by that. It was very good of Amnesty to allow me to make my speech at its headquarters here in London. Amnesty has been pressing us for some time to focus more strategically on the work that we are doing, particularly on women and girls in Afghanistan, and I was pleased to be able to set those policies out to Kate on Monday.

Hugh Bayley: I welcome the priority that the Secretary of State is giving to women and girls, and I hope that she welcomes the work that the International Development Committee is doing on the subject at the moment. I once asked the noble Baroness Afshar, before she was appointed to the House of Lords, what would make the most difference to British development policy in supporting women and girls. She said that it would be to ensure that there always had to be a woman’s signature on the cheque book. When the Secretary of State is talking about budget support, will she seek to ensure that, when decisions are taken by the Governments to whom we give money, women Ministers in those Governments are required to sign off any decisions before they are made?

Justine Greening: I am not sure whether we can go quite that far in practice, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the focus on women and girls will become a more hard-coded bit of our Department from now on. For example, our multilateral aid review is currently under way, but when we do our next one in 2015, the way in which multilateral agencies look at the issues of women and girls will be one of the factors that we use in assessing their performance. He is right to say that we want to see countries moving in the right direction on this agenda. The debate that is happening in New York, in which the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), has been involved this week, shows that that is a challenge, but it is one that we need to meet head on.

Bernard Jenkin: I thoroughly commend my right hon. Friend for her powerful and moving statement. Will she commend the work of the Global Poverty Project, which has done so much to promote the empowerment of women as one of the five principles that are absolutely essential to rescuing societies from poverty and despair? Can she tell us what support she is giving to the project in order to help it in this important work, which is winning the argument?

Justine Greening: I will write to my hon. Friend about the precise support that we are giving to the project, but I can say that some amazing work has been done by such organisations. In the UK, Emmeline Pankhurst was being arrested for fighting for votes for women 100 years ago. It is staggering that in so many other countries, women’s rights are still at such a basic level and still having to be fought for. I said this week that the issue of women’s rights remains one of the greatest unmet human challenges that the world faces, and it is incredibly important that we do anything we can to work with those organisations to raise the issue and do something about it.

William Bain: Last April, members of the associate parliamentary group for the Republic of Sudan and South Sudan and I visited Lakes state in South Sudan and saw for ourselves the enormously empowering effect that smallholder agriculture projects can have on women’s economic rights in sub-Saharan Africa. Will the Secretary of State tell us what investment plans her Department has to support women’s economic development in that region during the remainder of this Parliament?

Justine Greening: I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development has looked at this area. Sudan and South Sudan are among the most challenging areas in which we carry out our work, and women’s economic empowerment in the region is incredibly important. In countries such as Kenya, women have access to only 1% of land titles, and without collateral, women cannot get a loan. Without a loan, they cannot develop their businesses. Much of our work is related to access to finance, as well as to allowing and helping women to grow the small businesses that they want to run, many of which involve agriculture and farming.

Tobias Ellwood: In recognising international girls’ and women’s day, may I say how sad it was that the Opposition opened up by complaining about the 0.7% of GDP official development assistance spending? They had 13 years in which to correct that position, and this Government are already spending that amount. It was sad that they had to open up with those comments.
	I commend my right hon. Friend’s powerful statement, from which I will take away some stark statistics. Women perform two thirds of the world’s work, but they earn only 10% of the income, own 1% of the property and hold 20% of the leadership positions. That suggests that there is much more work to be done. She mentioned that there had not been a good outcome at the UN talks last year. Will she tell us what needs to happen this year to ensure that that outcome is not repeated?

Justine Greening: All countries that have been keen to see the strong draft conclusions agreed have been lobbying furiously behind the scenes and in public. I have had two conversations with Michelle Bachelet, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has done some excellent work this week in New York on behalf of the Government as the cross-government champion on violence against women. At EU level, we have encouraged a unanimous EU approach to the issue. However, there is no doubt that those countries that do not want to see progress have also been getting organised, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to avoid a repeat of last year’s outcome. That would be a tragedy, and it is one that we are desperately trying to avoid.

Jim Cunningham: I was disappointed with the last speaker’s remarks, as it has been demonstrated here that there is a lot of support across the House for what the Secretary of State has done. I, for one, welcome her statement. Will she tell me what progress has been made to stop the trafficking of women?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we are nearing completion of a programme that will up our game in combating human trafficking. We have done a lot of work on it, although it is not quite finished in the sense of us being able to roll it out. We want to do more work on the subject. I have met the head of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue himself. One of my Department’s roles is not just to focus on countries in which we see women’s rights being eroded, but where aspects of that relate to the UK, to see what we can do by working with UK Government Departments to stop this terrible trade.

Mark Williams: The Secretary of State rightly makes a lot of empowerment, and I commend the work of her Department in Nigeria, particularly on the development of school-based management committees and girls’ clubs in primary schools. Solidarity is an important facet of dealing with the problem and the Department has gone a long way to achieving it, although there remains much to do. Also critical is the need for more women teachers.

Justine Greening: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. Nigeria is a huge country, and we have a very large education programme—two programmes, in fact—that can be a real challenge to deliver, particularly when we are often working in remote rural areas. As he says, part of our work is to make sure that we have a programme that sees girls able to talk about issues and to get educated at the same time. The issue of women teachers is a particularly important one. We often see—not necessarily in Nigeria, but across the world—women teachers being intimidated not to get involved in teaching. The earlier little girls can see role models of women doing jobs, having successful careers and earning income, the better. That is why the issue is so important.

James Duddridge: My wife grew up in Kenya and now sponsors a family there through Plan UK. Has the Secretary of State had a chance to speak to Plan UK about its assessment of how we can help women and girls in Kenya?

Justine Greening: I have not met Plan UK explicitly, although I know it is coming into my Department in the next few weeks. Its work in Kenya has, I think, been transformational. Real progress is being made in Kenya generally. Where I would like to see my Department doing more is in helping the country’s economy to develop. Ultimately, alongside developing public services and improving basic services, Kenya needs economic growth and jobs. Interestingly, UK companies did £1 billion-worth of trade with Kenya last year. I have no doubt that companies will have a role to play in joining the development push where Kenya is concerned.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. She will know that Pakistan will be one of the largest recipients of UK aid by 2015. One of the biggest problems facing Pakistan is population growth and lack of family planning, which has led to about 80% of maternal deaths. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Government of Pakistan to address these issues?

Justine Greening: I was in Pakistan a few weeks ago, and I had the very same discussions that my hon. Friend mentions. Interestingly, much of the work we do for girls in Pakistan is focused on education. We have a huge programme, focused particularly on states such as Punjab, that provides young girls with the chance to go to primary school and then on to secondary school for the very first time. We know statistically that when girls spend more time in school, they are less likely to start a family quite so early. Alongside direct family planning and access to safe family planning, that is one of the best ways of tackling these issues in the long term.

Glyn Davies: All who believe in fairness through gender equality will welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to maximise the British voice on the international plain, we must focus absolutely on gender mutilation and other abuses here in Britain, as well as on other equality issues such as the continuing wage gender gap?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right; in a nutshell, we have got to walk the talk. However sensitive and difficult it can sometimes be to discuss what is happening in our own country on women’s rights, particularly regarding FGM or forced marriage, I think we have to have that debate. It is time that we did. I hope we can lead by example. I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are doing in this area. If we are to be credible, that work is vital and it must go on alongside the work my Department is doing.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on all the work she is doing as Secretary of State for International Development. She quite rightly mentioned in her statement that she will apply special measures to the Afghanistan programme, but which other countries that are recipients of UK aid have most to do to improve their record on women and girls?

Justine Greening: Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to single out any particular countries, but we know that when we invest £35 million to tackle female genital cutting, we are aiming to eradicate the practice in 15 countries. In some communities, however, this practice is starting up, so we are not necessarily combating a problem that has reached its zenith so that we are trying to get it down to zero. We are working against the tide in some places, so I am not going to single out particular countries, not least because we want to hold out a hand to them to get them to move along the path we want. We are careful about how we manage to achieve that.

Andrew Stephenson: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Yesterday, I attended a meeting hosted by Raja Najabat Hussain, the chairman of the Jammu Kashmir self-determination movement, and met the head of the women’s wing of that organisation to mark international women’s day. Kashmiri women and girls have been deeply affected by the dispute in the region and have been denied their basic human rights for far too long. I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about her work in areas such as Afghanistan and Syria, but what more can we do to support the women and girls of Kashmir?

Justine Greening: We have talked a lot about education and health today, but some of the work on justice and strengthening justice systems is also important alongside that, as is ensuring that the right laws are in place at the legislative level, so that women and girls have recourse at the national level. Those are the other building blocks that we should try to ensure are in place. Part of what DFID does is to work with institutions to strengthen them so that they are better able to deal with these issues—from a top-down basis, as well as from a grass-roots programme bottom-up basis. My hon. Friend mentioned the particular area of Kashmir, which is representative of the fact that in many of the places where DFID does its work, the circumstances are incredibly challenging—so much so in some cases that it is quite hard for our staff practically to get out and deliver the job and the programmes. Yet that is what they do, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the DFID staff in all those countries whose living conditions are incredibly challenging. They get on with their jobs and make a huge difference to the people they help.

Henry Smith: Raising my daughter over the last 10 years has been one of the most important roles I will ever carry out. I seek assurances from my right hon. Friend that when it comes to DFID projects, fathers and responsible male role models are, wherever possible, made part of the upbringing of disadvantaged girls?

Justine Greening: I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We are funding programmes in Nigeria, for example, which do just that. Part of the research that we are conducting on violence against girls and women and how it can be tackled relates to how we can change attitudes and involve boys and men in the eradication of such violence.

Bob Stewart: It is very sad that some people are suggesting that there are more slaves in the world than there have ever been before. As a delegate to the International Committee of the Red Cross, my wife watched slavers moving across south Sudan towards the middle east with girls, boys, women—mainly—and a few men. What measures can my right hon. Friend take to try to stop this abominable trade?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. It is 180 years since the House passed an Act abolishing slavery, but in reality, as he says, that is the day-to-day life that many people face. I assure him that I work tirelessly with the Foreign Secretary to combat it.
	We must tackle the problem at national and international levels and at the grass roots, but if we are to tackle some of the root causes, we must also enable people to be more valuable if they stay where they are, which means ensuring that they are educated and have skills. The biggest value that they have should lie in their staying put and doing a job domestically. In future, the economic development aspect of what DIFD does will need to constitute a far bigger part of its overall work than it has in the past. Ultimately, trafficking and slavery are about money, so we need to change the money argument if we are to see a real change in outcomes.

Therese Coffey: Last week I was a member of a Conservative Women’s Forum panel discussing sanitation and water. A representative of WaterAid said that some of schools that are now being built—and it is fantastic that girls are getting into schools—do not have bathrooms. Can we do anything about that? Should we not take all possible opportunities to achieve the millennium development goals referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry)?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right. It is often not good enough just to establish the infrastructure. We need to ensure that we have looked at every aspect of the barriers that prevent girls from going to school.
	When I was visiting family members back in Rotherham the other day—I will keep it brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I opened the Rotherham Advertiser to see the headline “Knickers for Malawi”. Two women in Rotherham are collecting knickers and sending them to little girls in Malawi, because, as we know, one of the reasons parents are reticent about sending their girls to school is their
	worry about the girls not having the appropriate underwear —and who can blame them? We need to remove some of those unusual and unpredictable but important barriers, as well as investing in the obvious infrastructure.

Point of Order

Therese Coffey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for clumsily trying to make it earlier.
	During business questions today, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—to whom I have given notice of my point of order—referred to me and to an article in The Sun. I was under the impression that it was a convention in the House that a Member who was to be mentioned by another should be given notice. If the hon. Lady had done that, I should have been able to inform her that the comments in the paper to which she referred were completely untrue, and that I am in the process of exchanging letters and seeking an apology and a retraction. However, at least this point of order has given me an opportunity to put it on record that I do not believe that the Prime Minister is sexist in any way, and also that the House should celebrate unconscious bias training as a way of increasing diversity, which we should all want.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me say in fairness that the shadow Leader of the House apologised to me for having to leave because she had to attend a meeting that was about to start. She waited as long as possible.
	The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) was in the Chamber when she was mentioned in passing. It was not a personal attack; it was merely a mention of the hon. Lady, so the normal custom did not apply. If the hon. Lady had not been present and it had been a personal attack, one would have expected her to be notified.
	The hon. Lady is, rightly, seeking a retraction from The Sun. That is not a matter for the Chair, but let me say that the House wishes her well.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	SUPPLY AND APPROPRIATION (ANTICIPATION AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

[Relevant Document: The Eighth Report from the Joint Committee of Human Rights of Session 2012-13, Legislative Scrutiny: Justice and Security Bill (second Report), HC 1014.]
	Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 1
	 — 
	The Intelligence and Security Committee

Steven Baker: I beg to move amendment 8,page1,line7, leave out ‘nine’ and insert
	‘an elected Chair and eight other’.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 9,page1,line9, at end insert—
	‘(2A) The Chair is to be a member of the House of Commons elected in the same way as the Chairs of Departmental Select Committees.
	(2B) A person is not eligible to be elected as Chair of the ISC unless that person—
	(a) has received the formal consent in writing of the Prime Minister to that person’s candidature, and
	(b) is not a Minister of the Crown.’.
	Amendment 10,page2,line3, leave out subsection (6).
	Amendment 11,in schedule 1, page16,line5, after ‘person’, insert
	‘elected as the Chair or’.
	Amendment 12,page16,line7, after ‘(2)’, insert ‘The Chair or’.
	Amendment 13,page16,line12, after ‘is’, insert ‘the Chair or’.
	Amendment 14,page16,line16, leave out
	‘Parliament by virtue of which the person is a member of the ISC’
	and insert ‘Commons’.
	Amendment (a) to Government amendment 58, line11 at end add—
	‘(e) may make payments to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and House of Lords in respect of any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, in relation to remuneration payable to ISC members in respect of their membership of the ISC.’.

Steven Baker: Before I deal with amendments 8 to 14, which stand in the name of, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), I should explain that my hon. Friend has been unavoidably diverted by long-standing and immovable duties in relation to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. He sends his profuse apologies to the House.
	I am acutely aware of what is at stake in relation to the Intelligence and Security Committee. In 2009 the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report entitled “Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture”, which considered the ISC’s ability to work within a circle of secrecy and yet deliver credible scrutiny. It states:
	“The missing element, which the ISC has failed to provide, is proper ministerial accountability to Parliament for the activities
	of the Security Services. In our view, this can be achieved without comprising individual operations if the political will exists to provide more detailed information to Parliament about the policy framework, expenditure and activities of the relevant agencies.”
	The provisions in the Bill are therefore welcome on the whole, but amendments 8 to 14 would remedy a crucial deficiency in the struggle to provide that political will to answer to Parliament.
	The amendments would have a very simple effect. They provide for the election of a Chair of the ISC from the House of Commons on the same basis as the election of Select Committee Chairs, apart from the fact that candidates would be required to obtain the formal consent of the Prime Minister in writing before standing. Ministers would be ineligible.
	There are three reasons why reform of the ISC is needed. First, it tried, but failed, to get to the bottom of British involvement in rendition; its investigation of British complicity in extraordinary rendition was a test that it failed.

George Howarth: As an ISC member of seven years’ standing, may I say that I take grave offence at what the hon. Gentleman has just said? We looked very thoroughly at the evidence on rendition, and arrived at suitable conclusions. I think that to make a blanket allegation of that kind without providing any evidence to back it up, which I hope he will now do, is unacceptable.

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention has slightly pre-empted a quotation that I was about to give. In a recent pamphlet, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester wrote:
	“The ISC found no evidence that the UK agencies were complicit in any extraordinary rendition operations and concluded that, during the critical period (from 2001 to 2003), the agencies had no knowledge of the possible consequences of US custody of detainees generally, or of Binyam Mohamed specifically.”
	He went on to say:
	“The opposite was the case. Successive court judgments have now made clear that the UK ‘facilitated’ the interrogation of Binyam Mohamed. Furthermore, High Court judgments in February and July 2009 concluded that crucial documents were not made available to the Committee by the Secret Intelligence Service, which led to the Committee’s Report on Rendition being inaccurate”.
	I see the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) shaking his head, and I regret that he is offended, but the reality is that allegations have been made about the Committee’s performance, and made credibly, by my hon. Friend. What the amendments seek to do is not to haul the Committee over the coals, but to demonstrate that there is a strong, clear case for the Chair to be elected.
	The ISC thought that it had reached the truth, but it had not. MI6 had been complicit in extraordinary rendition, and it was left to the courts to expose the truth.

Julian Huppert: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument with interest. What evidence does he have to suggest that the information would have been provided if the Chair had been elected by this House? We all want that information to be provided, but how would this proposal fix the problem?

Steven Baker: It is, of course, very difficult to prove such things conclusively, but I will come on to discuss the evidence that the election of Select Committee Chairs has made those Committees more authoritative, which is a point the Government have endorsed. First, however, I want to raise two other issues.

Paul Murphy: As the Chairman of the Committee that produced the report, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that it would not have made the slightest difference if I had been elected by Members of this House, as opposed to being appointed by the Prime Minister, as I was.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving his opinion, and I do not mean any slight against him personally, of course, but before addressing that specific point I would like to talk about the experience the House has had since Select Committee Chairs have been elected.
	The second reason why the ISC needs reform is because its independence has been compromised by its ties to the Executive. In recent years, a string of appointees have come out of Government to chair the Committee, only to return to the Front Bench afterwards. Until the June 2009 reshuffle, all of the preceding three Chairmen of the Committee went straight back into senior Government posts. They were Ann Taylor, now Baroness Taylor of Bolton, and the right hon. Members for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett).
	Despite Standing Order No. 152E, introduced under the previous Prime Minister, Kim Howells was appointed as Chair by that Prime Minister in October 2008 without the involvement of the Committee of Selection. Experience of Government is no doubt valuable, but the revolving door between the chairmanship of the ISC and the Government should be blocked. It is damaging to the Committee’s credibility.

Malcolm Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I must apologise because I will not be able to attend much of this debate as I have to travel overseas.
	I put it to my hon. Friend that the point he makes is already met by the reforms in the Bill, because in future not only will the House of Commons have to approve any member of the Committee and be able to reject recommendations from the Prime Minister, but the Chairman will be elected by the Committee members from among themselves, who in turn will have been approved by the House of Commons. It was the Prime Minister who appointed me and all my predecessors; that is the current situation, but he will no longer have that power.

Steven Baker: My right hon. and learned Friend accurately reflects the Bill’s contents, but as I shall explain later, I do not think it is right that the Chair should be elected by the nominated members of the Committee approved by the House. I think the Chair should be elected by the whole House under secret ballot.

Douglas Carswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington
	(Sir Malcolm Rifkind) would be analogous to MPs being chosen by sitting MPs? True democracy means that those outside the little magic circle of the Whips’ favourites have a say.

Steven Baker: I perhaps would not have chosen precisely the same words, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments.

Julian Lewis: I am sorry to disagree with both my hon. Friends, especially as they really are my hon. Friends. That analogy breaks down because this is not MPs being elected by other MPs; rather, it is the Chair of the Committee being elected by a group of MPs who will have been chosen with the final say-so of the House of Commons. The other point I would simply make is that I do not think people who know either me or my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) would regard us as falling entirely in the Whips’ narks category.

Steven Baker: Since my hon. Friend has brought me on to this territory early, let me deal with these points now, first by saying to my right hon. and learned Friend that I well remember the month when he became Secretary of State for Defence, because it was when I graduated from initial officer training. I am very well aware of his august experience and the extent to which it exceeds my own. I am also well aware that my hon. Friend is a man of great character and integrity and personal courage. This is not really the issue, however. The issue is the institutional arrangements we put in place not necessarily to constrain my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend, but to ensure the Committee is credible both now and in future.

Malcolm Rifkind: I want to be clear about my hon. Friend’s position. Is he concerned that, as on previous occasions, I might be asked to rejoin the Government in the near future? If so, I would be grateful if he would share any relevant information with me.

Steven Baker: As I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am often in close contact with the Whips, but not usually on that matter.
	The third reason why the ISC needs to be reformed is because it has seemed unwilling to demonstrate that it challenges the information it receives from the intelligence and security agencies. The Joint Committee on Human Rights found the ISC’s 2007 report on rendition to be “opaque” and too readily accepting of the accounts presented by the agency heads, without sufficient justification.
	The crucial reform that is necessary is direct election of the Chair by the House of Commons. The Wright Committee—the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons—thought extremely carefully about this issue. Paragraph 74 of its report states:
	“The credibility of select committees could be enhanced by a greater and more visible element of democracy in the election of members and Chairs.”
	It also states:
	“Their election by a small group of Members, acting under party constraints, is evidently not conducive to producing a truly independent figure with the required weight inside and outside the House which House-wide election might confer.”
	That is precisely my point.
	Those of us who were elected in 2010 have experienced first hand only the operation of Select Committees under Chairs directly elected by the House, so I personally struggle to draw a comparison. However, in responding to the Liaison Committee’s second report of Session 2012-13 on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers, the Government acknowledged:
	“Chairs of select committees are now elected by the whole House, giving them increased authority and independence.”
	Who am I to disagree with the Government on this point?
	That is precisely the reason for these amendments. It may suit the Government to be scrutinised by carefully selected nominees who elect a Chair from among themselves, as the Bill proposes, but the risks to the credibility of the Committee are obvious.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to make the perfectly logical and rational argument that the Chair and membership of the ISC are analogous with the Chair and membership of other Committees. Does he not accept, however, that as the ISC deals with intelligence matters and our secret intelligence services, other factors must be taken into account, because the trust relationship—not collusion or a cosy relationship, but a trust relationship—between the agencies and the members of the Committee is crucial to effective scrutiny? If the agencies do not have that confidence and trust, they will be less forthcoming.

Steven Baker: The right hon. Lady’s question pre-empts some of my other remarks, but let me just draw her attention to what amendment 9 states:
	“The Chair is to be a member of the House of Commons elected in the same way as the Chairs”
	of other Committees, and:
	“A person is not eligible to be elected as Chair of the ISC unless that person—
	(a) has received the formal consent in writing of the Prime Minister to that person’s candidature, and
	(b) is not a Minister of the Crown.”
	So the Prime Minister, and the security establishment, would have the opportunity through that procedure to approve or reject a person who wished to stand for election as Chair of the Committee. That is not a perfect situation, but it is one that recognises the point the right hon. Lady makes.

Julian Lewis: This is meant to be a helpful intervention. I think my hon. Friend accepts that if we are to have this Committee that is unlike any other in that it is the only Committee with access to top-secret, classified information, it is not good enough simply to say that any Member of this House, however honourable, who happens to be fortunate enough to win an election should automatically be appointed Chairman of such a Committee. Am I right that my hon. Friend acknowledges that that would be an impossible situation?

Steven Baker: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point, but that is why the amendment is phrased in the way that it is. It does not seek that individual members of the Committee should be elected; that is a compromise that those who introduced it have agreed to. There is agreement that Committee members should be nominated by the Prime Minister and approved by the House, as the Government have proposed. The crucial distinction is that the Chairman, who is the key figure of the Committee, should be elected by secret ballot of the whole House and that that Chairman should have been previously agreed to by formal consent of the Prime Minister in writing, which gives the Prime Minister and the security establishment the opportunity to exclude any Member who might not be an appropriate person.

Malcolm Rifkind: Has my hon. Friend taken on board the ultimate argument against his amendment—that is, the invidious position in which it would put the Prime Minister of the day? If someone has sought to stand as candidate for the Chair and the Prime Minister has refused to give his consent, that is not a private matter. That would become a public matter and the Prime Minister would either have to refuse to give his reasons or, if he did give his reasons, those might be very damaging to the reputation of the individual Member concerned. When the ISC considered this question, as we did when we were putting forward our original proposals to the Government, we rejected that idea precisely because it would put the Prime Minister in an invidious position that he could not be expected to carry out without creating much greater problems.

Steven Baker: I recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend is advancing that argument with the best possible intention, but we live in a time when, because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism in particular—to pre-empt my concluding remarks—there has been an encroachment on our fundamental principles of liberty and justice, which we see elsewhere in the Bill. It is in that context that we must make sure that the security services are held properly to account in a transparent and credible way.
	Here is the crucial point: in other Select Committees, transparency can do the heavy lifting, but as has been mentioned, transparency is not available in relation to the ISC. Precisely because of that, we need an elected Chair. I appreciate that the Prime Minister might find himself in a position where he had to reject a candidate in advance of their election, but that is surely a better option than going forward with a Committee whose independence from prime ministerial patronage can be questioned. I appreciate that the Prime Minister might have to engage in some politics on this issue, but that is after all his job.

Menzies Campbell: Like others, I do not take offence at the argument, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s representation of the nature of those who serve on the Committee is a long way short of my experience, if I may put it that way. Am I to understand that no matter how well qualified a Member of the House of Lords might be to chair the Committee, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would preclude that from ever happening?

Steven Baker: Let me take both those points. I do not wish to cast any doubt on particular members, but we are in a position where the Committee’s success can be questioned and we need to deal with that on an institutional basis. Yes, the substance of the amendment would preclude a Member of the other House from being the Chairman of the Committee.
	Amendments 8 and 9 provide for the election of the Chair from the House of Commons on the same basis as departmental Select Committee Chairs, with the exception that they would have to have the Prime Minister’s consent to their candidature. The amendments do not make provision for the election of members of the Committee. We think that together these amendments would lead to increased authority and credibility for the Chair, which is not to cast any aspersions on my right hon. and learned Friend. I feel sure that if he stood for election, I would be strongly inclined to vote for him. The point is to set up the institutions so that they are beyond reproach. Amendments 10 to 14 are consequential on amendments 8 and 9.
	In conclusion, as I said, the problem is that terrorism and fear of terrorism have led Governments—for honourable reasons, I do not doubt—to erode principles that ordinarily we would regard as sacred principles of our systems of justice and liberty. I refer in particular to closed material procedures, but also to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which have been dealt with on other occasions. In that context, it is vital that the House, the wider public and non-governmental organisations are reassured that the security agencies are answerable to the House, albeit in secret, through a Chair who enjoys the authority conveyed on him by Members. That is why we have tabled the amendments, and I hope that the House will adopt them.

George Howarth: I shall try to be brief because I know that a great deal of ground needs to be covered in these debates. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) has served a useful purpose by ventilating the issue through the amendments. I do not want in any way to detract from that. First, however, he bases the argument on an event that he portrays inaccurately, and I will say a word about that in a moment. Secondly, in trying to make the role of the Chair subject to the will of the whole House, he fails to understand the nature of the composition of such a Committee and the responsibilities placed on it, and I will also say a few words about that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) was the Chair of the Committee when we examined the issue of extraordinary rendition. The way that the hon. Gentleman portrayed what we did grossly misrepresented the process that we went through. First, as my right hon. Friend has just reminded me, there was a break at one point in our consideration of the Bill at the request of the then Government while further information was forthcoming.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman implied that vital information had not been put before us. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said in an intervention, the information that we did not have at the time did not change our conclusions at all. We subsequently got that information and, in further annual reports, we pointed out that there was a problem with retrieval of the information that the agencies held. It was never a deliberate
	attempt on their part to mislead us and the information concerned did not materially affect the conclusions that we drew. So the example that the hon. Gentleman uses to justify his case is, frankly, wrong.

Steven Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the substance of the court judgments made around the Binyam Mohamed case?

George Howarth: There is a whole separate debate to be had about that. The hon. Gentleman rightly referred earlier to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with closed material proceedings. There are a number of problems with the Binyam Mohamed case, the main one of which concerned the doctrine known as the control principle. That creates serious problems for our relationships with partner agencies, particularly the United States, but if I were to go too far down that road, Mr Deputy Speaker would pull me up because we have already dealt with amendments to part 2. The process of considering the issues by the Intelligence and Security Committee is not as the hon. Gentleman portrayed it.
	On my second point, I shall be brief because in his intervention the Chair of the Committee cleared that up. We have gone a very long way to making the ISC more like a Select Committee, but it never can be identical to a Select Committee, as I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, because of the nature of the material that we have to deal with. As a member of the Committee, I am content that the appropriate person to have the final say and to have the recommending powers on who is an appropriate person to chair that Committee should be the Prime Minister of the day—not that I do not trust the House of Commons. As a long-standing Member of the House, I have every confidence in it, but in this one exceptional circumstance I do not think that that is the appropriate way to do it. Although in democratic terms the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is well intentioned, I do not think it is appropriate.

Steven Baker: rose—

George Howarth: I will give way, then I intend to conclude.

Steven Baker: Why does the right hon. Gentleman consider it inappropriate to give the Prime Minister of the day the opportunity to approve—or reject—the candidacy of particular Members and then allow them to go forward, with the benefit of that approval, to be elected by the whole House so that they can enjoy the authority of the whole House? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who is no longer in his place, advanced the argument that the Prime Minister would be in an invidious position, but that does not seem to be what the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Why should we not have prime ministerial approval and then an election?

George Howarth: Because, as I have already said and as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the ISC is a different kind of Committee. The people concerned are handling different information—information that they cannot share—and there are occasions when there is an ongoing operation, things are moving at a fast pace, it is impossible to convene a meeting of the full Committee, and the Prime Minister, the heads of agencies and the Foreign Secretary—whoever is relevant—have to be able to talk
	to somebody. On some occasions the Chair has been the person they speak with, which is entirely appropriate, but in order for them to be able to do so the Chair must have the confidence of senior Ministers and the heads of the agencies. I think that is an important principle. Otherwise, they will feel inhibited about sharing vital information, which often has to be provided at very short notice, with the Chair at least.

Douglas Carswell: Is not it precisely because the Committee’s work is so vital—in some senses it is more important than almost any other Committee, because it relates to fundamental issues of statecraft and national security—that there should be at least some modicum of democratic accountability, albeit under the system of de facto licence, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker)? It is precisely because that work is so vital that it should not be left to the grandee system to ensure that the people who are meant to be overseeing what happens are awake and alert to the job.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention seems to be predicated on the view that the Committee is entirely unaccountable, but that is not the case. We produce an annual report and other reports during the course of the year, and they are debated in both this House and the other place, along with other matters we have dealt with over the year. Therefore, to that extent there is accountability. In that sense the way the Committee operates is already similar to the way Select Committees operate, and it will become more so as a result of the Bill.
	However, I still think that whoever chairs the Committee has a special role and that an appropriate veto over an individual’s promotion to it has to be in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. I have no reason to believe that the current Prime Minister, who is not a member of my party, would not perform that role properly. I also believe that no Prime Minister would promote the candidacy of someone they did not think would have the confidence of the whole House, not just that of the Committee. In that context, I think that the accountability is already there. It might be a little bit opaque in some respects, and in others it might be indirect, but it is there and it is appropriate.

Julian Lewis: I would like to confine my remarks to an elaboration of a point that was made very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who sadly is not in his place at the moment. There seems to be a conflation of two separate concepts: whether the election of the Chair directly will aid the Committee’s credibility; and whether it will aid the efficacy of its performance. For the life of me, I cannot see how the method for electing the Chair would make any difference whatsoever if, for example, the Committee was carrying out an investigation and one or other of the security agencies chose not to supply it with certain information that ought to be supplied. I would have thought that the best insurance for an agency supplying the information that should be supplied is the consequences of what would happen if it did not do so and the omission came to public attention, as it inevitably would.

Steven Baker: If the Chair is elected and enjoys the authority of the House, apart from any prime ministerial patronage or the appearance of it, he would have the
	authority, and not just with the agencies, but in the public sphere, to be able to tell the Prime Minister that he was dissatisfied with the information provided by a particular agency, and in that way the two mechanisms come together and authority over the agencies is increased.

Julian Lewis: I am afraid that I do not think that cuts any ice whatsoever, because one cannot be in a position to be dissatisfied with information that one has not been given and does not know exists. The suggestion, which is implicit in my hon. Friend’s intervention, that the person who was Chair at the time of the particular historical episode to which he refers—it was before my time on the Committee—would have acted in any way differently had he been elected, and that he did not act simply because he felt insufficient legitimacy to do so because he had not been directly elected, is frankly unrealistic.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) seems to overlook the fact that changes in the Bill will massively strengthen the Committee’s position. The Committee will be able to require information to be provided, whereas previously it could only request it. That is a huge difference. The position of the House of Commons will be strengthened vis-à-vis the Committee’s membership, because previously the House could express an opinion about whether it had approved the people nominated to be members, but in fact the Prime Minister had the final say, whereas now the House will have the final say. If the House does not like the cohort of people who have been nominated, it can throw them out and the Prime Minister will have to nominate someone else.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is focusing his attention on a really rather narrow issue, because the House of Commons will have the final say on who all the members of the Committee, at least from the House, will be, which at the moment is seven of the nine. Therefore, those members, who will themselves have been directly appointed by the House on the nomination of the Prime Minister, will then be in a very strong position to choose one of their own number to be Chair.
	I will say one more thing on the matter. I do not think that the world would collapse if my hon. Friend’s amendment were successful, but we are taking a giant stride in the right direction. One thing I have found through working on the Committee is that it, probably more than any other Committee—all Select Committees like to flatter themselves for being relatively non-partisan—is totally non-partisan. Even if one wanted to be partisan, there is no one there to watch one being so, so there really is not much point. I can honestly say, as I said in an intervention at an earlier stage of the Bill’s consideration, that if anything unfortunate were to happen to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who chairs the Committee, I would almost certainly find myself voting for the Chair, if I had the option of voting for another Committee member, on a non-party basis.
	I do not think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is proposing would be earth-shatteringly damaging if it went through, but I really do not think that it is terribly necessary, and I am concerned that people would put themselves forward and say, “I wish to be in this position,” only to find that they had been
	vetoed, for reasons they could not be told, by the Prime Minister. That would be a coruscating experience for all concerned.

Paul Murphy: Had I been inclined to support amendments 8 to 14, my inclination would have dropped dramatically over the past half hour as a consequence of hearing the speech made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker). I do not think for one second that the Committee’s significance depends on the Chair. The Chair is an important member of the Committee—the first among equals. During the two years I chaired the Committee, including the period when we considered extraordinary rendition, there was certainly unanimity among the members, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has just mentioned, as there is now, so the Committee had to come to a consensus.
	It is preposterous to argue that whether or not the Chair had been elected would have made the slightest difference to the report on rendition or to the Committee’s eventually recommendations. That issue can be dealt with in another place and at another time, although the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), who was supposed to move the amendment—we have had an explanation of why he cannot be here—had a particular interest in rendition, but Members of the House will know that the Committee dealt with a host of other important issues affecting this country’s intelligence services.
	Twenty years ago, the Committee started on a journey. Before the law was changed, there was no Committee of this House—in the Commons or the Lords—to deal with the intelligence services. Indeed, just before the inauguration of the Committee, the very existence of MI6 was denied publicly by the Government. In those 20 years there has been a dramatic shift in how the intelligence services have been made more accountable. The latest of those shifts is proposed in this Bill, which is a very good Bill in that regard. The accountability and transparency that it requires—there is obviously a limit to how much transparency one can have when dealing with the intelligence services—is something that I am sure we all welcome and support.
	I support the proposal that the members of the Committee—who, by the way, are themselves subject to approval by the House of Commons and the House of Lords—will decide on who the Chairman of the Committee is to be. The Prime Minister does not do that. The Prime Minister could have a say in who the members are, but ultimately the House of Commons makes that decision. Those members will know among themselves who they feel to be the best person for the job. We have to bear it in mind that this is not a Select Committee. If it were, it could be argued that its Chair should be elected in the same way as for a Select Committee, but it is not—it is a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Chair of the Committee, who is usually, and should be, a Member of this House, reports to the House annually, and a debate is also held in the other place. Having the members themselves choose the Chair of the Committee is a very significant development.
	The Committee can never be the same as a Select Committee, because if it were, it would not be doing its job. It has to command the trust and the confidence of the intelligence services because of the nature of the business they deal with. The only way to do that is to
	have people on the Committee who are trusted not only by their colleagues here and in the House of Lords but by the three agencies, so that they can ensure that there is the fullest flow of information of highly sensitive and secret detail that the Committee can deal with. That is why it is different from other Committees. I think that the proposals in the Bill, which have been refined over the past couple of years, are such that everybody will be able to support them today.
	Another matter covered in this group of amendments is the way in which the ISC is financed. Under the Bill, the Committee is no longer a statutory Committee—it becomes a Committee of Parliament. As a consequence, the Government will pay Parliament for the workings and expenses of the Committee. I fully support the Government amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is going to discuss the remuneration of the members of the ISC—more particularly, that of its Chair. Of course, all of us who have held these positions over the years have had no remuneration. I welcome and support this development and only wish that it were retrospective so that I could claim two years’ back pay, but that is not going to happen. My hon. Friend’s amendment refers to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which I hope will support this measure. I also hope that the Chair of the ISC will get the same remuneration as is paid to the equivalent Chairs of Select Committees: in this case, I imagine, the Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and Defence Committees. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is extremely hard working in his position, and I believe that this is a right and proper thing to do.

Menzies Campbell: I have the good fortune, in the interests of brevity, to be able to acknowledge all that has been said on both sides of the House, but I would like to add a thought or two of my own.
	This Committee is sui generis; there is nothing else like it. To seek to bring it within a certain structure runs the risk of ignoring the fact that it has particular characteristics. The Chair of the Committee has particular characteristics, too, because by convention the Committee does not talk to the press. When any request is made for information from the print or electronic media, the proper course of action, which, if I may say so, I have studiously followed since my election, is to refer the matter to the Chair of the Committee. The Chair then finds himself in a very difficult and sensitive position regarding the extent to which he is able to respond to possibly legitimate inquiries about the work of the Committee, in so far as that is consistent with the fact that he, like all of us, signs the Official Secrets Act. No member of any other Select Committee in the House of Commons does that. Particular skills are therefore essential for the chairmanship of this Committee that are not necessarily required in the chairmanship of other Committees. I respectfully suggest that those who are best able to assess those skills are the members of the Committee themselves. Of course, they must have confidence in their Chair.
	The Prime Minister has the ultimate responsibility for security under our conventional constitutional arrangements. That is why his role must be acknowledged, and I believe the Bill does exactly that.
	One of the consequences of amendment 9 is that no member of the House of Lords, however well qualified, could ever become Chair of the Committee. I do not suggest that that would be a matter of routine, but there may, in exceptional circumstances, be an individual who, by reason of experience, judgment and knowledge, would be particularly suited, and it would not make much sense if the Committee were not in a position to endorse that individual for chairmanship.
	The amendment contains an inherent contradiction. It begins:
	“The Chair is to be a member of the House of Commons elected in the same way as the Chairs of Departmental Select Committees.”
	As I said, this Committee is different in that its Chair has to sign the Official Secrets Act. The amendment goes on to say that he must have
	“received the formal consent in writing of the Prime Minister”.
	That is not an election that accords with the way in which Chairs of departmental Select Committees are elected.

Steven Baker: rose—

Menzies Campbell: I will finish this point, if I may.
	The amendment contains a contradiction in saying that we must elect the Chair in accordance with general circumstances while adding an extra requirement. That would make it a little difficult to maintain the unqualified democratic support that the mover of the amendment sought to persuade us to accept would be part of the process.

Steven Baker: I admire the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is attacking my amendment and seeking to show a contradiction. We all agree that this Committee is different because of its need to access classified information, and that is the reason for having a different provision that does not exist in the case of other Select Committee Chairs.

Menzies Campbell: First, I had a concession on the peers and now I have a concession on what appears to be an inherent contradiction.
	It seems to me that these provisions meet the necessary requirements of a Committee that is sui generis and that they are entirely in accord with the extension of scrutiny and responsibility that the rest of the Bill provides.

David Winnick: Let it be stated from the beginning—this should be made absolutely clear—that this is not about the integrity of any member, past or present, of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am certain that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), who moved the amendment, is under no illusions, because it would be defeated in a vote. I hope there will be a vote, but am not sure that there will be.
	I think that this has been a useful debate, however brief, because we rarely have the opportunity to debate how ISC members are appointed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) has reminded us that until about 25 years ago there were no statutory regulations on the security agencies. I remember clearly
	my attempts to have debates on M15 and so on in the 1980s, but they were not welcomed, to say the least. In so far as M15 and M16 are accountable to Parliament, I thought it only right and proper that we should have the opportunity now and again to discuss their role.
	As I stated many years ago, let me make it clear—in case anyone thinks otherwise—that I am not against the security agencies. Even when there was no acute terrorist threat such as that which we face now, I made the point time and again that every democracy has a right to protect itself and should have some sort of agency against those who want to do harm to it.
	What we are discussing today is not, as I have said, a matter of integrity, but whether the House should have an opportunity to elect those who serve on the ISC. I see no reason why we should not do that. I do not like the view that has been expressed, more or less, that the security agencies could veto people whom they do not particularly like.

George Howarth: I do not think that anybody is advancing the argument that the heads of agencies or the agencies themselves should have a veto. It is merely that they should be able to feel confident in the person who chairs the Committee. The difference is subtle, but they are two different things.

David Winnick: When the agencies were put on a statutory basis, however, and appointments duly made, it was argued that if certain people were made members the security agencies would not supply the information requested because they would not have confidence in them. I do not believe that it is possible to divide the House into those Members who can be relied on in that manner and those who cannot. There should be no such division. Are any of us who have the honour to be elected Members of this House fellow travellers of terrorist organisations or willing to betray the trust of our country? I do not accept that Members can be divided accordingly.
	If the Chair of the ISC and its members were elected by the whole House—that is not going to happen at this stage, unfortunately—they would have more authority and more credibility. That does not mean that, had the Committee been elected in the past, it would have come to different conclusions. That is not what I am saying; what I am saying is that, instead of appointments, there should be elections, as is the case with Select Committees.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is making a speech that he has made for many years and his important views are sincerely held. Does he not accept, however, that there has been a big change in the system, in that the appointment of Members of this House to the Committee is subject to the approval of us as Members of Parliament? That was never the case before.

David Winnick: Yes, of course, and that is an improvement. I do not challenge that. Indeed, as I have said, placing the agencies on a statutory basis was an improvement and a step forward from what happened previously. I hope that, when Members on the two Front Benches agree—I do not know when that will happen—the next step will be elections, which will be far better for credibility, which is essential, than appointments.
	It seems odd that we are debating, in the 21st century, whether elections are desirable for Committee positions. I would have thought that we passed that stage some time ago.

Paul Murphy: Does my hon. Friend not accept, however, that this is a joint Committee and that other such Committees of the House are not elected, but subject to parliamentary approval in exactly the same way?

David Winnick: Yes, I do accept that, but it would be useful if Commons members of the Committee were elected. What they do in the other place is entirely a matter for them.
	As I said at the beginning, this is a useful debate that gives a minority of us the opportunity to express our views. I hope that, in due course and over the years ahead, the House of Commons will make the sort of decision on this matter that some of use would like to see.

Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I am sure I have agreed with him on previous occasions, but I am not sure on what issues. I agree with the thrust of his remarks. Like him, I start by saying that I have the highest regard for those of our colleagues who currently serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee and those who have done so in the past. It is not my view that we would get better people to serve on the Committee if we elected them, but neither do I think we would get worse people.
	Having been elected by colleagues to serve as a member of the Wright Committee on Reform of the House of Commons during the previous Parliament, and given that one of our recommendations has been discussed, I want to make a brief contribution to this debate. Of course, we made other important recommendations, including the introduction of elections for Select Committees. I hear what other Members have said about this being a different type of Committee that is not entirely analogous to Select Committees, but when we considered our proposals we heard all the same arguments—that it would lead to frivolous appointments, that the House would behave in a partisan way in choosing Select Committee Chairs or members, and that the House of Commons could not be relied on to do this in a reasonable, rational way.
	Although I did not realise at the time that my election as chairman of the 1922 committee meant that I would be responsible for conducting the elections of Conservative members to Select Committees—I inadvertently increased my work load considerably as a result—I think, three years on, that those elections have been a great success. The Chairmen are good people who have been elected for the right reasons, which demonstrates that we have made a wise change.
	We reflected long and hard on this recommendation for a particularly important and sensitive Committee, and that is why we also recommended a safeguard that it should not be possible for somebody to be a candidate for election as Chairman of the ISC if they did not enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister. I am entirely open to other suggestions as to how it could be done.
	I think that it is important to have a safeguard and that, with that safeguard in place, an election would be entirely reasonable.
	The question, as we have heard, is whether it would make a difference to the stature or efficacy of the Committee if it were elected rather than appointed. It could make a difference in either direction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) ably argued, the Committee could enjoy a higher stature as the result of an elected status. One hopes that that will be the case in due course. Some Members have raised the fear that it would have a lower status. They argue that potential members and Chairs of the Committee might not enjoy the confidence of the security services in particular and that, therefore, the Committee would function less well.
	Again, I do not believe that to be the case. I think that fundamentally the House is capable of reaching that very serious conclusion, making that judgment and choosing somebody on the basis that they would be the right person to serve as Chairman. I join those of my colleagues who have fallen over themselves to stress that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who sadly has had to go on travels elsewhere, is an admirable Chairman. I would be delighted not only to vote for him, but to propose him as Chairman. He would be an obvious choice.

Paul Murphy: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I am convinced that we are not getting to grips with the difference between Joint Committees and Select Committees. The ISC is a Joint Committee, like the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and is appointed. Is it not ironic that an unappointed Committee should have asked for another Committee to be elected, even though it had the same status?

Graham Brady: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. We are engaged in a process here. There has been a considerable amount of reform. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) alluded to the history: 25 years ago there was no oversight, then we got an oversight Committee and now we have a proposal to allow a parliamentary veto of its membership. Like him, I find it hard to believe that this is the last stage in that journey, and I suspect that 25 years from now we might have different arrangements in the other place and be looking at a completely different constitutional arrangement, which Joint Committees will have to reflect.
	For me—I cannot speak for the other members of the then Committee on Reform of the House of Commons—the fundamental point is not about the ISC, which I suspect would have much the same membership, would behave in much the same way and, like now, would have a high status and be held in high regard by the House. Fundamentally, this is an argument about the House of Commons and whether we have the self-confidence to believe that we should be taken seriously as a Parliament and a representative Chamber and whether we are prepared to take on this enormous responsibility. Just as the election of Select Committee Chairmen and members has enhanced the House, I believe that eventually this next step will also enhance it. It will prove us capable of making that responsible judgment and ensuring
	we have a Committee overseeing these vital and sensitive matters that is chosen democratically, but which is capable of enjoying the respect of the Government, the security services and the whole country. That could be done in a slightly more open and democratic way.

Diana Johnson: I plan to speak to amendments 8 to 14, which deal with the election of the ISC Chairman, and then Government amendment 58, which deals with the broad proposals for the financing and resources required by the ISC. After that, I shall speak to amendment 58(a), which stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and would make provision for payment to members of the ISC.
	It has been helpful having this debate and hearing the experiences of past and serving members of the ISC and other hon. Members who have taken an interest in the area for many years. It was important to hear the historical context and the explanation of why we are in this position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) explained that when the ISC was set up in 1994 it represented a huge change in the relationship between Parliament and the security services and that we have been on a journey ever since—this is part of that journey. It was also interesting to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said about the fight to get the ISC set up. It is important that we understand the history and why we are in this position, but we must also recognise the important work that the ISC does, and I pay tribute to all its members, who put an enormous amount of time and effort into their roles. It is vital that the public have confidence in the security services, and that demands confidence in their oversight.
	In our debates in the other place and here in Committee, there were extensive exchanges between the Government and the Opposition about how to strengthen the role of the ISC. Since inception, the ISC has been composed of Members of Parliament, yet because of its unique nature, it has often been portrayed more like a component of the Executive, not least because its secretariat is provided by the Cabinet Office. The Government have now finally decided, however, formally to constitute the ISC as a Committee of Parliament. Changing its name to the “Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament” emphasises not only that the ISC is composed of parliamentarians, but that they are doing the work of Parliament while serving on the ISC.
	In Committee, we debated whether to move to a full Select Committee status for the ISC, and there was lengthy debate about what it would mean and how it would operate. I think there was clear recognition from both sides of the House that the special nature of the role of the ISC and the sensitive and secret information it routinely dealt with made its constitution worthy of separate and special consideration. Many parliamentarians are calling for reform to be hastened. I would like to set out the Opposition’s view. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has called for the ISC to become a Select Committee. We recognise that, were that to happen and because of the special nature of its work, we would have to consider the most appropriate way of appointing a Chair.
	We think that amendment 8 gets the matter the wrong way around: it would deal with the election or appointment of the Chair, whereas we need to deal
	first with the fundamental issue about the status of the Committee. The Bill provides for a Committee of Parliament, with the rules for its operation and procedure laid down in statute. Hon. Members will know that Select Committees are not created by statute, but formed by a resolution of the House and governed through Standing Orders. I recently reread the chapter in the book by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) about the ISC and what reforms were needed. Of course, he referenced the Wright Committee recommendations about the ISC’s becoming a Select Committee and having an elected Chair, just like other Select Committees.
	The problem is, however, that in the Bill the Government are establishing the ISC as a Committee of Parliament, not a Select Committee. We are, then, in a very different place from the established Select Committee structures. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), but amendment 8 would give the ISC the partial look of a Select Committee, when it actually is not a Select Committee. I also note that setting out in a Bill how the Commons should elect a Chair is problematical, because the House is governed by Standing Orders. Will the Minister say whether it is in order to put in a Bill a mechanism for how the House should operate?
	My second problem with the amendment, which has been touched on by right hon. and hon. Members, is that it would require the Prime Minister to give written consent to any Member wishing to stand as Chair. As has been recognised, that does not happen with any other candidate for a Select Committee position, although it goes some way to recognising the special nature of the Committee. It would present lots of problems, however, as it would mean that the Prime Minister could decide not to endorse a candidate—an elected MP—as not suitable for a role, which would put the Prime Minister in a difficult position. I am not sure it is one we want to move to.

Menzies Campbell: Let us imagine that, say, half a dozen people wanted to apply. Has the hon. Lady considered what would happen if the Prime Minister took the view that only one of them was suitable? What would happen to the element of choice lying behind the views expressed today?

Diana Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman highlights yet another problem with supporting amendment 9 at this stage. He is right that it would take away the element of choice if only one candidate was endorsed.

Steven Baker: That is one of the more ingenious arguments for not having an election. It seems to me more than likely that the vast majority of Members of this House would meet the Prime Minister’s basic requirements for being suitable to keep state secrets. I cannot accept that argument. It seems to be an ingenious way of saying that democracy is not appropriate.

Diana Johnson: Nobody is saying that democracy is not appropriate. We are just highlighting some of the issues with the amendments that have been tabled.
	The basic problem that the Opposition have with the hon. Gentleman’s amendments is that they put the cart before the horse. The first issue that needs to be addressed is the status of the Committee. We should then decide how to elect or appoint a Chair to that Committee.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is making a very good case, so I hesitate to interrupt her further. Does she accept that there is a world of difference between the Prime Minister saying, “I think this is a suitable person to be the Chair of the Committee” before Parliament endorses them, and Parliament electing somebody and the Prime Minister then having to say, “I don’t think this is a suitable person”? Those two positions are entirely different. She is right about that.

Diana Johnson: My right hon. Friend makes that point very clearly. I will return to my argument, because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak about later proposals.
	The Opposition are of course sympathetic to attempts to widen accountability and open the ISC as much as possible. In Committee, we supported a number of amendments to do just that. We tabled amendments so that we could consider whether an Opposition Member should always chair the Committee, as with the Public Accounts Committee, and whether there should be a majority of MPs—elected representatives—on the ISC.

Edward Leigh: I have some experience of that point. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for nine years. The Chair of that Committee is the sole auditor of the accounts of the security services, so he sees in great detail all the accounts of the security services. He is not vetted by anybody, including the Prime Minister. He is elected by all Members of the House. Nobody has ever suggested that an elected or appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is a threat to national security, so this is a fuss about nothing.

Diana Johnson: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee deals with far more than just the finances of the security agencies, so it is not quite the same.

Julian Lewis: On that point, the hon. Lady’s response is correct. The people who advise the Intelligence and Security Committee on the finances of the security and intelligence services leave the meetings when other matters—namely, classified information—are under discussion.

Diana Johnson: That information is very helpful.
	I have explained why the Opposition will not support amendment 8. Government amendment 58 relates to the money, staff, accommodation and other resources that will be made available to Parliament for the new Committee. I wonder whether the Minister can help me, because I am slightly confused about the intention of the Government with respect to the support that will be provided to the ISC. In his response, will he set out how he expects the secretariat to the ISC to be provided? In Committee, we discussed a proposal suggested by the membership of the ISC for a non-departmental public body to be established to provide secretarial support. That does not appear to be what the Government are doing. Will he therefore explain what will happen?

Hazel Blears: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is consensus across the House that the Bill will strengthen the scrutiny of our secret intelligence services and that
	that is welcomed by everyone? In Committee, the Opposition were forceful in saying that if we are to have increased scrutiny, we need the necessary resources to do the job. The Opposition talked about a figure of £2 million. The Government’s impact assessment has a figure of £1.3 million. There is no agreement on resourcing, and without resourcing, it will be impossible to do the job that the Government want us to do.

Diana Johnson: My right hon. Friend raises an important point to which I hope the Minister will respond. Parliament is trying to reduce its costs by 25% over the course of this Parliament. I wonder whether the money that is being transferred to Parliament will be ring-fenced for the work of the ISC and whether it will be expected to make any savings out of that budget.
	Will the Minister also deal with the issue of the staff who will be transferred to support the new Committee? Am I right to assume that TUPE will apply? What discussions has he had with the Clerk of the House about this matter? Has he written to the Clerk of the House formally requesting that he starts to make preparations for such an undertaking?
	On the accommodation for the Committee, there are clearly security issues that need to be considered. Does the Minister have any further information about where he envisages the Committee being accommodated? Will any separate secure accommodation have to be provided?
	Finally, amendment (a) to amendment 58 would provide for the payment of members of the ISC. It follows on from other amendments that the Opposition have tabled to try to strengthen the role of the ISC within Parliament. The role of chairing the ISC will be every bit as important and time-consuming as chairing any other parliamentary Committee. We therefore feel that it should be recognised in the same way.
	At present, the ISC is a statutory body funded by the Cabinet Office. When the responsibility for funding the ISC transfers to Parliament, the responsibility for any payment to the Chair will also be a matter for Parliament. Given what I have said about the procedures of the House, I appreciate that that will probably have to be dealt with through Standing Orders rather than statute. In that case, I will be happy not to press amendment (a). I am sure that the Minister will be able to explain the funding situation.
	I will just explain why amendment (a) refers to all members of the Committee and not to the Chair. Again, the Minister might be able to help me on this point if there has been any progress. The amendment covers Members of the House of Lords as well because, unlike Members of the House of Commons, they do not get a flat salary, but receive an attendance allowance. As I understand it, they do not receive that allowance for attending the ISC on days when the Lords is not sitting.

George Howarth: I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that that problem for Members of the House of Lords sitting on the Committee has been resolved within the procedures of the House of Lords.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful if that is the case. If the Minister could explain that, it would be helpful.
	Amendment (a) was also drafted to include all members of the Committee in case it is felt appropriate in the future to make payments to members of Select Committees alongside the payments that are made to Chairs.

Kenneth Clarke: Before dealing with Government amendment 58, which provides the Government with the necessary powers to make a financial contribution to the Committee, I will add a few words to the interesting and lively debate that we have had on the election of the Chair. I will not repeat every argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) put the case robustly and had some pretty strong support. However, every member of the ISC who is here has responded and he has had to take on some of the more formidable Members on both sides of the House. He is also facing the opposition of all three of the major parties.
	I assure him that this is not an establishment stitch-up—quite the reverse. Perhaps the best way of illustrating that is by putting everything in the context of what we are trying to do in this part of the Bill. We are making a remarkable advance in strengthening the powers of this Committee to hold our security and intelligence services to account. For 20 years the Committee has steadily contributed on that front, and we are marching forward considerably in the Bill. This part of it is just as important as the part we debated on Monday, as we are stepping towards making our security services more accountable to Parliament. We are enabling judges, in exceptional cases, to take all the evidence into account and make an adjudication when allegations are made by individuals; and we are committing to holding judicial inquiries when worrying circumstances occur—subject, of course, to those inquiries being able to get under way once police investigations have been properly completed.
	These amendments are important, and they are being proposed in the context of a situation where all parties agree that they want this Committee to be a parliamentary Committee and no longer a creature of the Government. We therefore wish to give it more resources and the structure that enables it to do an even better job. The only thing that distinguishes the Committee from a Joint Committee or Select Committee of this House is this problem of the extremely sensitive nature of some of the information that it sees. Only where it is unavoidable are we departing from the normal process of allowing the House of Commons to have a powerful Committee of its own choosing and to exhort it to do its job and report back properly on what is and is not happening in this area.

Hazel Blears: I think we are all agreed that strengthening the scrutiny of the Secret Intelligence Service is an important and welcome step forward. However, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that simply saying that we want to increase scrutiny is not enough. Instead of having the right to request information we are moving to a situation where we would be able to require it. We need additional investigators and that will require a substantial increase in the resources available to the Committee. Simply saying that we want increased scrutiny is not enough. I know he understands that, so will he tell us now that we will be getting an increase in resources to enable us to do the job he wants us to do?

Kenneth Clarke: I encounter many people making bids for resources for their particular, extremely important, activities. My right hon. Friends at the Treasury are receiving a very large number of these bids all the time. I have had some experience of public spending, and I can tell the House that it is not wise to engage in negotiations across the Floor of the House—it is certainly not wise for a non-Treasury Minister to do so. For this purpose, in this debate, given those present, I think we can agree that it is the Government’s intention that this Committee should be properly resourced to do its job, which is why we are taking a power to supplement Parliament’s financing of the Committee. Obviously, the Government have the right to query and test the figures that are put to them, and there are ways in which this can eventually be negotiated.

Julian Lewis: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: We might be getting bogged down in a public spending round, and we have other matters to move on to.

Julian Lewis: I hope not to get bogged down. I wish to assist our Front-Bench team by pointing out that the Intelligence and Security Committee has eight staff, whereas the detainee inquiry, which looked at only one issue, had 14 staff and the Committee on Standards in Public Life has 12 staff. As the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) pointed out, the Government’s own impact assessment suggested that to do what is being required of us we would need a budget of £1.3 million, which compares with the existing budget of £750,000. At the moment only £850,000 is being offered, and if the gap is not bridged, this whole reform will be a waste of time.

Kenneth Clarke: I can say only that I, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, am fully aware of the Committee’s views on the amount of funding that it will require. Yet again, I take note of my hon. Friend’s points on the matter, but I repeat that there is not much point in my standing here carrying out a negotiation with him or any other member of the Committee about the figure we arrive at. As someone who has been at the Treasury, I think that the Government must combine providing the right resources, which are undoubtedly going to be more than the Committee has had in the past, with doing a bit of negotiating about what is the necessary cost. Report stage is not the place to resolve the final figure.
	Similarly, the status and nature of the Committee will not be resolved finally by statute or by debate on the Floor of the House. A long discussion has been going on to make sure that the Committee has the right status and structure to do its job effectively, and I think we are very near to reaching a successful agreement between the Government, the Opposition, the House authorities in both Houses of Parliament and the current members of the Intelligence and Security Committee on what its status should be. I am told that we still have to have further discussions with the House of Commons Commission and the House Committee in the House of Lords, but I think everybody is becoming satisfied that we are resolving that matter. We are also resolving the question of the accommodation, which probably will have to be on the Government’s estate rather than the
	parliamentary estate, for security reasons. I will go into more details if hon. Members wish, but I realise that we still have quite a lot of the Bill to deal with. Unless hon. Members are particularly interested in knowing the precise current status of these discussions, I hope I may take it that the House is reasonably satisfied that all parties are going to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I assure the House that the Government have been anxious throughout to make this Committee powerful, properly resourced and as much of a parliamentary body—a body that is accountable and resembles the Select Committees of the House in every way possible—as it can be. I think that soon this will all be resolved.
	I shall now deal with amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), although she anticipated my reply. Government amendment 58 is required in order to give us the necessary authority to make the financial contributions that we are going to be arguing about. Amendment (a) seeks to oblige the Government—or at least expressly to empower them—to make an additional amount available for the payment of Committee members. That is not necessary, nor, in my opinion and that of the Government, is it wise to start putting the matter of the payment of members of Select Committees or parliamentary Committees into statute, or implicating the Government directly in that. The payment of members of this Committee, the Chairman of this Committee and members of Select Committees is a matter for the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—from every point of view, it is best left there. Where the Government have to initiate all this, it is a feature of all Governments, of all political complexions, that they can get very politically embarrassed on questions about the remuneration of any Member of either House. So a process that leaves the matter with IPSA and the House of Commons is preferable to the hon. Lady’s amendment.
	Finally, I shall touch on the spirit of political debate we have had on the question of whether the Chairman should be elected, and again I must say that the Wright Committee produced a splendid report. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) first proposed this, but he is not able to be here because he is serving on his Banking Commission, as we all realise. We worked together, when we were in opposition, with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is now the Government Chief Whip, on a thing called the democracy taskforce, advocating the election of Chairman of Select Committees and producing proposals that were remarkably close to those of the Wright Committee. I certainly start on the same basis as my colleagues who have been drawn to this part of the debate, but we have heard all the arguments why, in this particular case, the proposal does not work. We are already making the whole thing approved by Parliament. No longer will the Prime Minister appoint the Chairman; the Chairman will be elected by those who know—or will know—him best: members of the ISC.
	One difficult hurdle that cannot be overcome by those who think such a system is not good enough and want the whole House to elect the Chairman, subject to
	prime ministerial veto, is that a veto will be difficult to exercise. We are on much safer ground if the Prime Minister nominates people and invites Parliament to elect them, as we have proposed, rather than letting people put themselves forward and the Prime Minister moving in and vetoing an individual, which unfortunately could occur.
	During my time in the House I have known more than one person—including Members from both sides of the House and in one case a personal friend from my party—who could not have been appointed to this Committee and would have been vetoed. That would not always have been for political reasons; I suspect that sometimes the security agencies knew something about those people’s history or private lives that would have made them totally unsuitable to sit on the Committee. I need only hint at such things to show why we cannot just let the House of Commons elect absolutely anybody, subject to prime ministerial veto.

Steven Baker: It is clear from the amendment that we do not seek to allow the House of Commons to elect anybody, and it is not a veto but an opportunity for the Prime Minister to approve candidates. Such a mechanism could take place in private; it would not need to be all over the front pages that someone had been turned down. The process could be done beforehand and the candidate would just have to obtain formal written consent for them to stand.

Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is confident that if someone starts campaigning and positioning himself or herself for this job, but then suddenly stops campaigning because the Prime Minister puts an end to it, it will all remain secret and no one will accuse the Prime Minister of political bias—whereas actually they will, and everybody will realise that something about the candidate has caused the agencies successfully to blackball him or her. We cannot agree to that. Some of the Members I am talking about have served in government and would have been perfectly suitable to be Chair of the Health or Education Committees, but partly because of the job I was once in, I knew that I would not have put them on this particular Select Committee and would have wanted the Prime Minister to stop that appointment. I do not think there is an answer to that.
	The system has been devised in such a way because Members on both sides of the House, and current members of the Committee, have done their best to make this as democratic and parliamentary as we possibly can. The Wright Committee has transformed things in this House. The Government have introduced the election of Select Committees and they are being made more powerful. Alongside that reform, we are making the Intelligence and Security Committee far more parliamentary and powerful. The fact that there is a comparatively detailed difference in the way that Parliament votes for the Committee members and how the Chair is elected does not undermine the policy and the Bill.
	I hope I have explained why everybody involved, including those on the Opposition Front Benches and my allies in the Liberal Democrat party, have been driven to the conclusion that this is the best way of resolving the problem and moving to a decent amount of parliamentary democracy, without jeopardising our national interest. I therefore hope I can persuade my
	hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe to withdraw the amendment and persuade the House to give the Government power to continue negotiating these finances by accepting amendment 58.

Steven Baker: Not for the first time I have made common cause with a well-known Member from the left of the Labour party, and I am grateful that on this occasion I have done that for the first time with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I was also grateful for the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who brings to bear his experience from the Wright Committee.
	Some of the arguments against these elections have been somewhat ingenious, and I shall treasure Hansard tomorrow when I look at the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who I think brilliantly set out the advantages of appointment over democracy. I shall look at that with some joy. We have all understood what the Bill provides; it certainly takes us forward although, as I have said, I would prefer the Chair to be elected in the way that I outlined. I am glad we have held this debate and aired the issue.
	The Opposition have said that this provision puts the cart before the horse, but they did acknowledge the context, which is crucial. We have seen encroachments on the principles of liberty and justice, which many of us thought we were sworn to defend. However, in the view of this Government, and the previous Government, such measures have proven necessary to protect the public, and we are where we are. With that in mind, and having listened to both Front-Bench speakers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

James Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 56, in schedule 1,page16,line31, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(5)’.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendment 57
	Amendment 75,page17,line38, leave out from ‘ISC’ to end of line 43.
	Amendment 73,page18,line34, leave out from ‘private’ to end of line 3 on page 19 and insert ‘from a person subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989.
	‘(2) The ISC may only publish or disclose the information—
	(a) by way of a report under section 3,
	(b) if the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that publication or disclosure would not be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters or any person carrying out activities falling within section 2(2), or
	(c) if publication or disclosure is necessary for the ISC to comply with any enactment or rule of law.’.
	Government amendments 59 and 60
	Amendment 76,page19, leave out from line 4 to end of line 7 and add—
	‘Protection for proceedings of the ISC
	6 No part of the proceedings of the ISC, including evidence given to the ISC may be used in any civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings, except in the case of evidence given in bad faith.’.
	Government amendments 61, 62 and 55
	Amendment 71,in clause 2, page2,line29, at end insert—
	‘(4A) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply where a plausible claim has been made by or on behalf of an individual to the ISC that the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Headquarters has disseminated any information to any recipient concerning any person that appears to be—
	(a) materially false; and
	(b) harmful to the person defamed.
	(4B) In any case where subsection (4A) applies, the ISC shall fully and expeditiously investigate the claim and, where the claim appears to be well founded, shall ensure that the misinformation is expeditiously corrected.’.
	Amendment 74,page2,line29, at end insert—
	‘(4A) The ISC shall consider the proposed appointment of the following, including by questioning the prospective appointee at a meeting of the ISC—
	(a) the Head of the Security Service;
	(b) the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service;
	(c) the Head of the Government Communications Headquarters; and
	(d) such other persons as the Prime Minister may direct.
	(4B) The ISC may consider the appropriateness of holding hearings considering each prospective appointee’s proposed appointment in public.’.
	Government amendments 63 and 64.

James Brokenshire: After that interesting debate about the basis for the important reforms that are taking place to strengthen the scrutiny, and perhaps some of the principles behind measures in the Bill relating to the parliamentary ISC, we will now consider a number of amendments that touch on procedural matters relating to the functions and operation of the ISC. I apologise to the House in advance that I will touch on a range of different points. I know that a number of other amendments have been grouped for this debate, so I will touch briefly on those and then reflect on points made in the debate. If time allows, I hope to respond to any further points that may arise.
	Amendments 56 and 57 were originally tabled on Report in the other place and Lord Taylor highlighted that one possible consequence of the change in the Bill to refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee “of Parliament” could be that the ISC would have the power to take evidence on oath. However, further analysis concluded that the consequence of changing the ISC to a statutory Committee of Parliament would be that the ISC may, in future, take evidence on oath. Our view was that, when taken together, the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871, which concerns the power of Committees of the House of Commons to administer oaths, and its Lords equivalent, the Parliamentary Witnesses Act 1858, would give the ISC the authority to administer oaths.
	However, the House services raised a concern with the Government about that provision and disagreed with our analysis that the change to “of Parliament” would give the ISC the authority to take evidence on oath. They believe that the Bill should contain an express power for the ISC to take such evidence. Following
	further discussions in response to that point, and with the intent of putting this issue beyond doubt, we have decided to address the concern of the parliamentary authorities by tabling amendment 57, which puts the ISC’s power to take evidence on oath beyond doubt.
	The amendment makes it unnecessary to specify in the Bill who has the power to administer oaths on behalf of the ISC, as there is no longer any need to displace the provision in the relevant statutory authorities. Amendment 56 makes procedure in relation to the ISC hearing evidence on oath a matter for the ISC to determine, pursuant to paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1.
	An amendment was agreed in Committee that places restrictions on the ISC’s ability to publish material that it receives in connection with the exercise of its functions, other than through its reports. We had a useful debate in Committee, which highlighted some of the issues and challenges and recognised the need for safeguards to ensure that sensitive material was not inadvertently disclosed, as well as the need for the ISC to be able to fulfil its duties.
	The amendment addresses a consequence of the ISC being a statutory Committee of Parliament. In that context, the ISC will have a general power to publish information, which will sit alongside its express power to publish reports to Parliament. Absent the restriction, which is now contained in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Bill, under that general power the ISC would have been able to publish evidence it has received other than through its reports to Parliament. Following concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I was able to provide assurance that it was not the Government’s intention that the amendment would inhibit or limit some of the existing practices of the ISC, and made a commitment to look at the language to see whether there was any way of giving further assurance. I have considered that matter and, as a consequence, we have tabled amendment 60.
	Amendment 60 would provide a further gateway allowing publication or disclosure where the Prime Minister and the ISC agree that this would not cause prejudice to the functions of the agencies or other Government security and intelligence bodies. This is the same criterion that is used in clause 3(4) of the Bill which allows the Prime Minister, after consultation with the ISC, to require that the ISC must exclude a matter from any report to Parliament.
	The consequence of amendment 60 therefore would be that the ISC would be able to publish informally—for example, in an open letter—any information which, ultimately, it would be permitted to include in its reports to Parliament. As I have said, the criteria are exactly the same. I recognise the concern to ensure that the existing arrangements for the ISC and the steps that it takes are maintained, and that is in part reflected in amendment 73, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) with the support—I believe—of the existing members of the ISC. While I am sympathetic to the intentions, and have had several discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend to work out some suitable language to address the issues, our view of amendment 73 is that it would
	have some unintended consequences. In its current form, the amendment would widen the net in a way that I suspect the ISC had not anticipated.
	I shall return to the principle after I have gone through some of the technical issues that have been identified. The amendment refers to information received by the ISC
	“from a person subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989.”
	While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, that phrase suggests that the prohibition should apply to any person inside or outside Government who had ever known, or been in a position to know, any classified information. Unfortunately, the effect of the amendment would be slightly different. The Official Secrets Act 1989 contains prohibitions of general application, most notably in section 5, and it extends to the whole UK. It even apparently covers some acts done outside the UK by British citizens or Crown servants. It would therefore cover information beyond the purview and structure anticipated. It would cover all information supplied by a person who has, at any time, been in a position to have access to classified information. Information supplied to the ISC by such a person will be covered by the prohibition whether or not it is in fact classified information, and whether or not it even came to that person in connection with the role in which they had or could have had access to classified information.

Julian Lewis: I accept the validity of what my hon. Friend says, but the problem is that in that formulation the ISC was trying to do away with a similar problem with the Government’s wording, which suggests that all information that the ISC receives in private is subject to these restrictions. The whole point of what we are trying to say is that it should only apply to classified or sensitive information that we receive in private. Other information that we receive in private, such as from victims of the 7/7 bombing, should not be restricted in that way. Even though my hon. Friend makes a valid point against the wording that we have offered, the same point still applies to the Government’s wording.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend, in his customary way, has highlighted the genuine challenges that both the Government and ISC members have had in seeking to frame legislation, which can be a challenging mechanism within which to express matters effectively. He rightly points out the evidence given by the families of the victims of 7/7 and those who were sadly caught up in that terrible event. There have also been discussions of the evidence taken from communication service providers during the ISC’s recent inquiry into communications data, including whether the information provided was sensitive. It is a challenge at times to analyse evidence from third parties to decide whether evidence is sensitive and thus not suitable for disclosure. Sometimes that is clear, but sometimes it is not.

Hazel Blears: I am following the Minister’s argument closely, and I acknowledge that it is difficult to get the right legislative framework for this area. I wish to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that part of the change we are seeking to achieve is to make the Committee more independent. The consequence of the provision that all
	information in private will be covered means that the decisions can be made by the Government rather than the Committee. We must have a clear delineation of information that belongs to the Committee, which can then decide what to do with that information. No matter how hard this is, I hope that the Minister will be creative and ingenious enough to provide clarity. Such information is not the Government’s information: it is for the Committee to decide.

James Brokenshire: I hear the point that the right hon. Lady makes. The intent of the changes in the Bill is to underline the greater scrutiny and the import of the ISC as a Committee of Parliament in fulfilling its work, and therefore ensuring that it has an appropriate mechanism for the publication of information relating to its deliberations. As we have already discussed, sometimes there are challenges on evidence given, perhaps in private, and we had some useful debates in Committee on public hearings. We hope that we will be able to work with the newly formed ISC to have public evidence hearings for some evidence that has previously always been held in private. I acknowledge that most evidence would probably still continue to be heard in private because of the very nature of the materials provided, but we want to look at ways to make hearings more public to show the important scrutiny that is provided by the ISC, and thus to enhance visibility, transparency and confidence in the scrutiny role.

Menzies Campbell: Perhaps I might endorse the Minister’s enthusiasm for the public hearings, which would constitute a complete departure from what has previously been the case and provide an interesting opportunity for that greater degree of public interest and public understanding. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) has had to leave because of another commitment, but it is my understanding that he has been in informal discussions with the Minister about the issues raised by amendment 73. Am I right in understanding that it is possible for those discussions to continue and that consideration may be given in another place to an amendment that would satisfy both the Government and the Committee?

James Brokenshire: Informal discussions have taken place to work through the detailed and technical issues that need proper consideration and ensure we strike the right balance. I welcome that dialogue. Before I return to the substance of my right hon. and learned Friend’s point and respond formally, I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field).

Mark Field: I hope the Minister will recognise that the concern expressed by all of us as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee is that the terms of the Bill are far too broad. If the Government remain unwilling to go along with amendment 73, will he give some consideration to these issues being dealt with in detail in the memorandum of understanding? It may be that some of the technical difficulties to which he referred would be more appropriately dealt with in that forum.

James Brokenshire: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There is scope to deal with this further in the memorandum of understanding. I reiterate that it is not
	the Government’s intention to try and stop the ISC from continuing to do things in the way that it does at the moment as a consequence of the changes contemplated in the Bill, and I am content to reflect on providing further clarity in the memorandum of understanding to address some of those technical points. We have a framework in the legislation. While we may have found it challenging to get the precise legal wording right for an amendment because of those technical areas, I am willing to reflect on how we can seek to encapsulate the existing arrangements, under which the ISC conducts its affairs, in the memorandum of understanding.
	These exchanges highlight some of the difficulties in putting changes in the Bill in a rigid way. In some ways, because of the nature of the evidence, they probably lend themselves to being addressed more effectively in the memorandum of understanding. If it will help the House, I am happy to give that commitment on how we may best address those challenges in greater detail in the memorandum of understanding. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will accept the spirit in which that commitment is given.

Menzies Campbell: In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, may I say how grateful the Committee is for the attitude displayed by the Minister? We await the resolution with interest. We have a common intention; it is just a question of making sure we frame it in a way that satisfies all other criteria.

James Brokenshire: I understand. I look forward to continuing informal discussions, and hope that agreement on the memorandum of understanding on the operations of the ISC in Parliament will be resolved quickly.
	Government amendment 59 is a technical, clarificatory amendment that makes clear how paragraph 5(2) of schedule 1 will operate. The insertion of the word “otherwise” puts beyond doubt certain technical issues that have been highlighted, so I will not take up the House’s time and go through it in detail.
	On Government amendments 61, 62 and amendment 76, in Committee, a Government amendment was agreed to provide protection to witnesses before the ISC. It will prevent evidence given by a witness before the ISC from being used against them in any criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings, unless it was given in bad faith. The provision, now in paragraph 6 of schedule 1, replicates an important part of the protection that witnesses before a Select Committee would have, by virtue of a Select Committee’s proceedings being subject to parliamentary privilege. In doing so, that will encourage witnesses appearing before the ISC to be full and frank in the evidence that they provide. It is perhaps worth stressing that witnesses before the ISC currently enjoy no special protections with regard to the subsequent use of their evidence.
	The amendment made in Committee was therefore an important change to ensure that the ISC is able to perform its oversight function even more effectively, because the fuller and more candid the evidence the ISC receives, the more effective it is likely to be in supervising the security and intelligence community. During the debate in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) questioned whether the protection went far enough. In response, I made a
	commitment to reflect carefully on the points that were made. I have considered whether further protection could be given to witnesses’ evidence, preventing its disclosure for the purposes of any legal proceedings; in other words, not merely legal proceedings where the evidence would be used against the particular witness. I am happy to confirm to the House that, while we concluded that such a protection would be problematic in terms of compatibility with the European convention on human rights in relation to criminal proceedings, we are satisfied that it will be compatible for civil and disciplinary proceedings.
	Government amendment 61 therefore introduces a statutory protection for evidence given by witnesses to the ISC, preventing its disclosure for the purposes of any civil or disciplinary proceedings. That protection applies not merely to civil and disciplinary proceedings where the evidence would be used against the particular witness, but to all such proceedings. As a result, the existing prohibition on the use of evidence against the witness needs only to deal with use of evidence in criminal proceedings, since the wider protection given by the provision introduced by Government amendment 61 will cover use of evidence against a witness in civil or disciplinary proceedings. Government amendment 62 makes the necessary consequential changes.
	As amended, paragraph 6 of schedule 1 will therefore provide a statutory protection for evidence given by witnesses to the ISC, preventing its disclosure for the purposes of any civil or disciplinary proceedings. In addition, evidence given by a witness before the ISC will not be able to be used against that witness in criminal proceedings. Of course, evidence that is deliberately misleading is of no assistance to the ISC. Accordingly, the protections do not apply to evidence given in bad faith. It is important to explain the context in which the drafting has been framed.
	It may be that others will argue that this further protection, while welcome, does not go far enough. Indeed, I note that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has tabled an amendment that would extend the protection even further, and no doubt the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North will wish to speak to that. All I will say at this stage—obviously, I will listen to what the hon. Lady says in her speech—is that we believe there is a significant issue of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. For example, it is possible that criminal proceedings against an individual could hinge on the testimony of a particular witness who has given inconsistent evidence to the ISC about broadly the same matters. If approved, this protection in the proposed amendment would prevent the inconsistent evidence given before the ISC from being used by the defence in the criminal proceedings to discredit the witness.
	That would lead to obvious unfairness for the defendant in criminal proceedings. We do not believe that our preferred protection on this issue runs into that problem, because of the nature of its framing and the protections against self-incrimination. The ECHR has recognised that the privilege against self-incrimination lies at the heart of the notion of a fair trial. By providing the accused with protection against improper compulsion
	by the authorities and thereby avoiding miscarriages of justice, the existing protection secures the aims of article 6, whereas we judge that amendment 76 would run into challenges and issues in that way.
	Amendment 76 would also provide a blanket protection from disclosure covering any material that can be considered part of the ISC’s proceedings. It would cover not just evidence received by the ISC in the course of its proceedings, but records of the ISC’s deliberations and records of the questions asked of witnesses by ISC members. The amendment would even cover the reports that the ISC lays before Parliament, which will of course be public documents in any event. That is an extremely wide scope. Interestingly, I note from one of the pieces of advice given to me that the nature of any such protections afforded would also go further than those for minutes of Cabinet.
	There is a judgment to be struck. I recognise some of the issues that are being raised, which concern what a statutory Committee is. The ISC is a statutory Committee of Parliament but, because of those issues, it is not afforded all the protections of parliamentary privilege. The Government have worked hard to frame a number of protections to take the Committee as close as possible to a full parliamentary Committee—if I can use that rather inelegant language—that would be captured by parliamentary privilege. However, we believe that amendment 76 would run into significant legal issues.
	On the issue of proportionality—which I will finally come on to—there are a considerable number of matters that make the amendment problematic, although I understand the intent behind it.

Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that this is a similar dilemma to the one we faced on the question of publicity? The Opposition’s amendment might go too far, but we on the Committee feel that what the Government propose does too little. It protects witnesses against their evidence being used against them, but falls short—as the Minister seems to be conceding—of the protection the Committee would have if it were a Select Committee. Will he undertake to come back with something else at a later stage—perhaps in the other place—that would be a better compromise between those two positions?

James Brokenshire: I fully respect what my hon. Friend has said. We have given careful consideration, at length, to the statutory protections afforded to the ISC through this Bill. He will remember the debates we had in Committee about issues under the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act, along with a number of other statutory provisions, which we believed needed to be addressed to afford the ISC a number of additional protections. Although I very much hear what he says, the Government believe that we have taken this as far as we can through our amendments—and within the remit of article 6 of the ECHR, for example—to afford those protections and frame the provisions. I note the concern he has raised; all I would say is that the Government have taken some additional steps—on things that the existing Committee does not currently have—in how the Bill is framed to move the Committee as close as we can, within the framework of law, to provide the relevant protections.
	As members of the ISC who are here today will recognise, consideration was given to how one might approach the issue of parliamentary privilege. Indeed, there was a lengthy debate in the other place on that issue. There is a broad recognition that trying to define parliamentary privilege in statute would open a whole new array of issues. Indeed, I do not think this House would welcome an attempt to frame the privileges that reside in this place by way of an Act of Parliament, which might be subject to further litigation and challenge, which not only might have an effect simply on the ISC but could have a limiting effect on parliamentary privilege for broader issues in this House. When considering this issue, everyone involved in the examination of the Bill thought that that would be a very unfortunate step to take. Therefore, the Government have thereafter sought to approach the issue by framing matters within existing legislative frameworks.

Menzies Campbell: I just want to advise the Minister—who might not need advising—and the House that there is a Joint Committee of both Houses wrestling with precisely the problem he has just outlined, and it would not have made a great deal of sense for this Bill to proceed in a way that pre-empted any conclusions reached by the Committee.

James Brokenshire: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman; hence the reason the Government have taken the approach they have.
	Let me turn briefly to amendment 55, which concerns the ISC’s ability to oversee operational matters. With the amendments, the Bill now provides for three routes by which the ISC may consider particular operational matters. The first is where the Prime Minister and the ISC are agreed that the matter is of significant national interest and not part of any ongoing intelligence and security operations. The second route is where the Government request the ISC to consider a matter notwithstanding the fact that those criteria are not met. The third is where the ISC’s consideration of an operational matter is limited to considering information provided to it voluntarily by the agencies or another Department.
	That additional route was provided to meet a further concern of the ISC—that the requirement that both the ISC and the Prime Minister should be satisfied that the criteria for oversight of operational matters had been met risked slowing the provision of information to the ISC on routine operational matters. Obviously that already happens now; the concern was that not framing the third limb might hinder it. We therefore made an amendment in Committee to address that third point. The key issue is that, as has been highlighted, for the first two categories there is the ability to require further information to be given, whereas for the third limb—because, in essence, information is provided without being compelled—those further requirements did not operate. That is why the structure has been framed in this way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East expressed some concern about the term “voluntarily”. I think his point was that this was in some way a presentational issue—that we understood what we were talking about when it came to information that would ordinarily be provided to the Committee. We have reflected on that point; hence the reason for a further amendment to try to clarify rights of access.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explicit recognition of the fact that the Committee has had access to operational information for some considerable time, despite the fact that no such provision is in the current legislation. The Committee remains concerned about the use of the word “voluntarily”, and I had hoped that the Government would withdraw it from the Bill. It goes against the whole spirit of the direction in which we are moving, from the right to request information to the right to require it. That is a small change on the face of it, but it is actually a big, transformational step. I do not think that the word “voluntarily” is necessary in the Bill; it is superfluous and its retention goes against the direction of travel, in that the agencies will voluntarily be able to decide whether to provide information. That is not the relationship that we currently have with the agencies, let alone the one that we want for the future. I ask the Minister to think again. Why does he want the word “voluntarily” in there when we acknowledge that for the issues in question, this is a matter of requesting information just as we do now?

James Brokenshire: As the right hon. Lady says, the Committee already receives information on ongoing operational matters, and that would fall short of the requirements in the first two limbs that I have described. She will have seen the Government’s amendment that seeks to reflect the existing work that takes place and the information that is provided. As always with legislation, this is a question of the wording and the way in which matters are interpreted by lawyers, as well as by Members of Parliament. The provision is in no way intended to cut across the Committee’s existing work or the existing flow of information when a request for further clarification has been made. It is intended to provide a distinction between the first two limbs, which will contain an element of further requirement, and the third limb, in which information will be provided because it has been requested rather than required, and in which further investigations will be limited to using the information that has been so provided.

George Howarth: I am following the Minister’s argument closely. It would be helpful if he told us how he envisages a situation being resolved where an agency decides voluntarily not to provide information that the Committee feels is important. There might be a mechanism for doing that but, off the top of my head, I am not sure what it is.

James Brokenshire: This relates to operational matters and inquiries by the Committee. We have had discussions about the exploration of operational matters—this is a new aspect of the Committee’s work, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—and about how to frame that. Detailed consideration has been given to the specific matters that an inquiry may cover, and that is supplemented by the memorandum of understanding in respect of the first two limbs. Clause 2(3)(c) is intended to cover the ordinary information that is being provided. I think it was accepted in Committee that that paragraph dealt with the concerns of the ISC about ordinary matters that would be provided in that course. It states that
	“the ISC’s consideration of the matter is limited to the consideration of information provided voluntarily to the ISC by”
	the agencies, following those kinds of inquiries. These are issues that have customarily been dealt with by the Committee in its ordinary course. A relationship is established between the Committee and the agencies, and information is provided in that ordinary course, and we have sought to reflect the current practice.

Mark Field: The Minister will have gathered from the contributions from the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) that the Committee currently goes well beyond the constraints of the original legislation. Does he recognise that the use of the word “voluntarily” will give rise to concern outside this place that the Committee remains the poodle of the Executive or, to a certain extent, of the security services? He is right to suggest that it will make relatively little difference to general day-to-day operations, but one of the ideas behind the Bill was to make it crystal clear that we are not a poodle of the Executive or the Prime Minister of the day, and that we are not under the control of the security services. The whole idea of this is that we should be in a position to demand, and ensure that we get, material, rather than being at anyone else’s beck and call.

James Brokenshire: I absolutely agree and direct my hon. Friend to the provisions in schedule 1, particularly the part on access to information, which sets out clearly the rights of the ISC to obtain further information. That clear reform has been taken forward through the Bill. I would certainly endorse and underline my hon. Friend’s point. The ISC has not been a poodle in any sense in its existing format and that position would be strengthened even further under the Bill. The ultimate purpose of the reforms it contains is to ensure that scrutiny is enhanced further—for the very important reasons we have discussed.

Paul Murphy: rose—

Hazel Blears: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady, but then, because of time considerations, I should let other right hon. and hon. Members contribute.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful. Does the Minister not accept that the word “voluntarily” goes against the spirit of the Bill and the spirit of the memorandum? Perhaps he should reflect a bit further on it.

James Brokenshire: I take note of that point, but let me take the right hon. Lady’s intervention before I respond. She is likely to make a similar point, so I might as well take the two together.

Hazel Blears: The Minister is likely to face a unanimous view on this issue—certainly from members of the Committee. The use of the word “voluntarily” creates entirely the wrong impression of the direction of the Bill. It is superfluous; the Government do not need “voluntarily”. In the past, the ISC has sometimes received
	partial information from the security services that has affected the Committee’s decision-making. Voluntarily means “you can if you like; and if you don’t want to, you don’t have to”. Use of that word in the Bill is superfluous to requirements and sends out entirely the wrong message.

James Brokenshire: In their contributions this afternoon, members of the ISC have clearly underlined the robust scrutiny that is provided. These provisions relate only to operational matters—the new element added to the overall purview of the ISC that will result from the Bill. I have already highlighted the importance of clause 2(3)(a) and (b) for the two limbs, which covers the ability to require the provision of further information. If other more general inquiries take place, the provisions for the third limb are intended to denote the fact that the request to the agencies would not fall under the first two elements of the three limbs. It is a separate category.

Paul Goggins: rose—

James Brokenshire: I am conscious of how long I have already spoken for, but I will give way one last time.

Paul Goggins: The Minister has been generous and is providing an excellent defence of his position, but he does not need to be defensive because we know he is not being obstructive and is genuinely trying to find a way forward. He really should consider carefully, however, taking out the word “voluntarily” and then setting out his concerns in the memorandum of understanding. It is quite clear that it could be done in that way, so I urge him to consider doing it.

James Brokenshire: I hear the clear statements, but I have sought to respond in an equally clear fashion on why we judge that the need for that word still remains. Right hon. and hon. Members have argued loudly and clearly across the House in what I believe has been a good public demonstration of the clear and robust challenge that the ISC provides to Ministers and to members of the security agencies. I welcome the exchange we have had to underline the clear and focused challenge that will no doubt be given and enhanced as a result of the provisions.
	I note that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has tabled amendment 71. Rather than delay her presentation further, I will if I may respond to the points she raises in my summing up, although I have already taken up a great deal of the House’s time. With those comments, I support Government amendment 56.

Diana Johnson: I want to discuss amendment 75, which deals with the Osmotherly rules, amendment 76, which deals with the protection of ISC proceedings, and amendment 74, which deals with pre-appointment hearings.
	Amendment 75, tabled by me and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), would remove the Government’s ability to refuse to disclose information to the ISC when it is information “not proper” to be
	disclosed to a Select Committee under the Osmotherly rules. The Bill currently allows a Minister to withhold information if
	“it is information of such a nature that, if the Secretary of State were requested to produce it before a Departmental Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State would consider (on grounds which were not limited to national security) it proper not to do so.”
	What Ministers are able to disclose to Select Committees is governed by those famous Osmotherly rules, which we discussed in Committee. There are three reasons for withholding information: disproportionate cost, the fact that the information is sub judice, and the fact that it relates to a previous Administration. Our amendment would rule out the use of the Osmotherly rules altogether, although we would be happy for an agreement on cost to be included in the memorandum of understanding, which would achieve the same result.

Alan Beith: The so-called Osmotherly rules were devised by the Executive but were never accepted in any form by Parliament, and were not considered by Parliament’s Committees to have any binding force.

Diana Johnson: That is an interesting point, but because of the way in which the Bill is drafted and because of the references that have been made to the use of the Osmotherly rules, we think that there is a case for excluding them completely from the Minister’s decision making.
	We do not think that sub judice information should be excluded from the ISC’s hearings, because that might may prevent it from seeing particularly important information. As significant procedures exist to ensure that information will be protected, we should not worry about the ISC seeing the information if it would assist it. We also feel that the ISC should have access to information held by previous Administrations, for two main reasons. First, the matters that the ISC investigates are rarely politically sensitive, although they will be sensitive in other ways. Secondly, the ISC will often be able to investigate an issue only after a change of Administration. Its role is usually retrospective, which means that there will often be a long delay before it can begin an investigation.

Alan Beith: The ISC has, on occasion, sought permission from Ministers in a previous Administration to obtain access to material, and indeed has been given it, only to find that current Ministers decline to give permission on other grounds.

Diana Johnson: It is helpful to know that. However, time is pressing, so I shall move on to amendment 76. The Minister spent a fair amount of time discussing the amendment and the issues that he considered arose from it. It would exempt all proceedings of the ISC from civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings¸ which would protect members of the Committee, staff of the Committee, and evidence held by the Committee. In that respect, it extends the protections that the Government inserted in the Bill in Committee, which have now been refined in their amendments 61 and 62.
	Before I go into the details of the difference between amendment 76 and the Government amendments, I should establish why these protections are important.
	They are important because we want witnesses to be able to give full and frank evidence to the Committee, and we want the Committee to be able to receive evidence in confidence. It may be helpful to compare the provisions governing the ISC to the provisions governing Select Committees. Evidence given to Select Committees, whether written or oral, is subject to parliamentary privilege, which means that the evidence cannot be used in any court proceedings against the witness or anyone else.
	This is a central tenet of our democracy and allows witnesses to give the frankest possible answers without fear of reprisals. Witnesses giving evidence to the ISC are likely to be particularly mindful of the legal obligations on them. Evidence is likely to be covered by the Official Secrets Act and, technically, an offence would be committed every time a witness exceeded the explicit permission they had been given, which could be frequent.
	This may not be the only restriction on a witness’s ability to give evidence. Restrictions are likely to be contained within the witness’s employment contract and the civil service code. Such restrictions have the potential to pose two problems to the ISC. First, they could slow down or prohibit witnesses where there is no genuine need for them not to be able to divulge evidence but it is not clear they have the legal authority. Secondly, they could prevent the Committee from taking evidence from whistleblowers. In recognition of these difficulties, in Committee the Government tabled amendments introducing statutory protection for witnesses, exempting evidence they provided to the Committee from civil, disciplinary or criminal proceedings. Amendments 61 and 62 refine that. They maintain the complete exemption from civil or disciplinary proceedings, but limit the exemption in criminal proceedings to action taken against the witness.
	The Opposition welcomed the introduction of these protections and accept the refinements made today, but it is important that the House realises that these protections fall far short of those enjoyed by Select Committees and leave many unanswered questions. It is also important to realise that because these are statutory protections and not privilege, it would be possible for the Government or an agency to obtain an injunction preventing a witness from appearing before the Committee.
	As I have stated, parliamentary privilege covers all the proceedings of a Select Committee, and it is important to realise what that means in practice. It means the evidence presented to a Select Committee is covered by privilege. That is not any document submitted to the Committee, but documents accepted by the Committee as evidence. Privilege also covers all proceedings of the Committee, including advice given by the Clerks to members of the Committee and actions of members while serving on the Committee.
	I highlight these areas because it is not at all clear to me what alternative protections are given to the ISC in such situations. I would like to ask the Minister about a hypothetical situation where the ISC receives classified information relating to serious wrongdoing on the part of an element of the security agencies. Let us say, for example, the ISC were anonymously to receive Secret Intelligence Service transcripts indicating an agent had committed torture. I am not saying this has ever happened; I just want the Minister to say what would happen if it were the case.
	It is questionable whether the ISC would be able to act on the evidence it received. That would depend on the provisions in clause 2. These documents may be directly related to an investigation the ISC was already undertaking, but that is not the question I want to focus on here: I am asking whether the ISC is even in a position to accept these documents.

Caroline Lucas: Would the effect of amendment 76 be that if, for example, the ISC uncovered evidence of collusion in torture, that evidence could not be used in a court case?

Diana Johnson: I have tabled this amendment because I am not satisfied that the provisions the Government have proposed so far offer the type of protection that this Committee needs. I heard what the Minister said, and his response seemed to be that the amendment was drafted too broadly. I do not have the back-up of learned counsel in drafting amendments, and I want the Minister to explain what kind of protections are available and what their effect would be in the circumstances I have described.
	It is questionable whether the ISC would be able to act on evidence it received. I hope the Minister will address that point and explain the impact of the clause 2 provisions. The documents might relate to an ISC investigation, which might be relevant to whether it would be possible to put the documents forward and examine them.
	ISC staff members will be signatories to the Official Secrets Act. It is my understanding that parliamentary Clerks would be protected as soon as the document was taken into evidence, but no such protection is available to the ISC Clerk. Is that correct? If a staff member who received documents decided to pass them on to the Chair of the ISC, will the Minister confirm that they would be doing that without lawful authority and would therefore be in breach of the Official Secrets Act?
	Will the Minister also confirm the position for members of the Committee who consider such documents? Would members of the ISC be committing an offence under the Official Secrets Act by possessing those documents? It is important to remember that Members of Parliament have privilege in fulfilling their role as MPs and sitting on parliamentary Committees, but as I understand it, privilege does not protect them in their role on the ISC.
	Finally, I want to ask the Minister about the status of the hypothetical document to which I referred. Evidence accepted by a Select Committee is not admissible in a court of law, but what about evidence given to the ISC? The Government’s amendment protects witnesses, but in the case to which I was referring the witness would not be identifiable as the information would be given anonymously. That is often the case with whistleblowers: they are protected in the Select Committee system because their evidence is privileged, but under the Bill as drafted they would appear to be protected only if they had been recognised by the ISC as a witness. If they were not identified as the witness who provided the evidence, the evidence given to the ISC could be used against them in proceedings. That is why the Opposition have tabled
	amendment 76. Although we do not pretend that it will confer parliamentary privilege on the proceedings of the Committee we feel that it should confer some statutory protections, including on the Committee’s members, staff and evidence.
	Amendment 74 is about pre-appointment hearings for agency heads. The previous Labour Government introduced pre-appointment hearings for a range of public sector roles and we think that that should be extended to agency heads. Select Committees now hold pre-appointment hearings for a range of positions, and in keeping with our desire to make the ISC have some similarities with Select Committees, we would like to give it that role.
	Long gone are the days when heads of agencies were secretive figures; today they are well known and have a strong profile, which is all part of efforts on the part of the agencies to open themselves up. We should try to help in that and we should applaud those efforts. As the noble Baroness Manningham-Buller said in the other place, any person who is capable of running a hugely complex organisation, taking difficult decisions and juggling competing interests should be able to give a competent account of themselves and their organisation in front of MPs.
	Another positive consequence of introducing pre-appointment hearings is that it will encourage senior members of the agencies to foster strong relationships with the Committee in preparation for their possible future hearings. Such hearings were suggested in the other place and we discussed them in Committee, too. I believe the responses from the Minister in the other place and in Committee were rather weak. The Governments argued that such hearings were not necessary because agency heads were essentially civil servants and subject to the normal civil service recruitment rules.
	Although that argument might be technically correct, it fails to realise the two special characteristics of agency heads. First, they have far more autonomy than most civil servants not only in how they structure their organisation but in operational matters. The decisions they make are of a different order of magnitude from those made by normal civil servants. They make decisions that can be a matter of life or death, either for their staff or for people in the UK.
	Secondly, there is a more confusing line of accountability. If the permanent secretary of the Home Office makes a decision or a mistake, the Home Secretary will be required to answer for it. She appears before Parliament on a regular basis and the decisions made by her Department are in the public eye. There is no such clear line of accountability for agency heads. As the noble Lord Henley explained in the other place, the Prime Minister has overall responsibility within government for intelligence and security matters and for the agencies. Day-to-day ministerial responsibility for the Security Service lies with the Home Secretary and that for the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ lies with the Foreign Secretary. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament, and therefore to the public, for the work of the Security Service; similarly, the Foreign Secretary has his accountability. Only rarely are any such figures called on to account for the work of the agencies, however, so we must put greater emphasis and scrutiny on the person doing the implementation behind the scenes. I shall therefore want to test the opinion of the House on amendment 74.
	On amendment 57, the Under-Secretary sets out in a letter written to members of the Committee dated 5 March 2013 that any breach of the oath given by a witness would not be contempt of Parliament but could constitute an offence of perjury under the Perjury Act 1911, which could therefore be enforced through the police and criminal justice system. Can the Minister clarify whether this is different from what would happen in the case of a Select Committee? Will he explain how this would work, as the ISC sits in private and deals with very sensitive information?
	While the Minister is clarifying the position on oaths, I would appreciate it if he could clarify the ISC’s ability to call witnesses to come before the Committee. As I understand it, the ISC needs the permission of the Prime Minister and the agency heads before hearing from a member of staff of either agency. Nevertheless, I understand that an individual, who may or may not be a member of an intelligence agency, can volunteer to appear before the ISC and the Prime Minister or agency head would require an injunction to prevent them from appearing, although this person may be subject to various legal constraints, as I mentioned earlier.
	My current concern centres on the ability of the ISC to compel a witness to attend. There is already a limitation on its ability to call witnesses employed by one of the agencies, but what about witnesses not so employed, such as a retired agent, a member of the police or an ordinary citizen? Can the Minister explain what powers the ISC has to compel such people to give evidence?
	Amendment 73 and Government amendment 60 deal with the publication of reports. A strong message is clearly being sent to the Government and I was pleased to hear what the Minister said, with assurances given and an undertaking to consider a memorandum of understanding as a way forward. On Government amendment 55, it would be helpful if, in his final comments, the Minister could respond to the points raised by Members today.
	Finally, amendment 71 appears to give the ISC a significant new role and appears to allow individuals to make requests to the ISC, which I believe is unprecedented, and it also appears to give the ISC a role in addressing wrongdoing—possible torts committed by the agencies against individuals—and providing some form of redress to those individuals. I am not clear about the purpose of the amendment, but on the face of it the Opposition do not support it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. There are four Members trying to catch my eye on this set of amendments and the knife falls at 4 o’clock, so I ask Members to be conscious of the time that they take to make their case in order to allow the Minister to respond.

Julian Lewis: I shall be brief. On amendment 73, in the light of the undertaking given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the publication issues will be addressed in the memorandum of understanding, I am say on behalf of colleagues that we do not propose to press that amendment.
	On the question of taking evidence on oath, I think I speak for colleagues on the Committee in saying that we are entirely happy with what the Government propose.
	On the use of the word “voluntary”, I can only re-emphasise what has been said by many other colleagues. The Minister endeavoured to explain to the House why this applies only to that part of our duties that relate to operational matters. All I can say to him and to the Government is that we will be spending an awful lot of our time trying to fend off critics who, wilfully or otherwise, choose to interpret the presence of the word “voluntarily” on the face of the Bill as implying that we do not have the ability to force the agencies to comply with our requests, when in most cases we do. There must be a simpler and less emotive term that can be used to express the same purpose, without leaving us open to such unjustified criticism.
	On the question of privilege, I am still concerned, as are the Opposition, that sufficient measures have not been taken to empower the Committee and protect the Committee to anything like the same extent. For example, when the Committee discusses people’s possible involvement in serious criminal activity, could we end up in a situation in which some of our proceedings that involve statements —not from witnesses, but from Committee members—that in the ordinary course of events might be regarded as defamatory may result in court proceedings being taken against members in a way that would not be possible with members of a Select Committee in analogous circumstances? If we could end up in such a situation, the Government need to consider that problem very seriously indeed and do something about it at a later stage. I hope that the Minister will refer to that in his closing remarks.
	On the question of pre-appointment hearings, I do not believe that the Committee has taken a corporate view as such, but one point must be made, and made strongly: this would add to the work load of the Committee’s staff. The Committee, as has been made crystal clear today, is already grotesquely understaffed by comparison with comparable committees and organisations in this country and in Europe. Therefore, were we to take on that further burden, we would definitely need better proposals for resourcing it than those that are currently ready.
	The Opposition are quite right to resist amendment 71, because individual complaints against the agencies, such as that involving Binyam Mohamed, are not the responsibility of the ISC; they fall within the statutory remit of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. That is the correct body to deal with such matters.
	Finally, on the question of the Osmotherly rules, I am glad that the matter will be dealt with one way or another. We would prefer it to be set out in the Bill, but otherwise in the memorandum of understanding, because the ISC frequently needs access to the papers of a previous Administration, for example, or has to deal with matters that are sub judice, and we cannot row backwards from that situation. Subject to those comments, we are very pleased with the progress the Bill has made thus far.

Caroline Lucas: Amendment 71 seeks to provide some form of recourse for people who have been defamed by the UK security services and to ensure that part of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s remit is to investigate such claims and, where necessary, ensure that they are corrected. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said about this not necessarily being the right forum. I am happy to be advised on that, but right now it feels that there is no
	appropriate forum. The situation of Shaker Aamer, for example, which I will set out in more detail shortly, demonstrates that. If the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me on how we can make existing forums work more effectively, for example in this case, I would be very interested to hear what he has to say.
	The ability of the security services effectively to say what they like about anyone, often resulting in serious consequences for the individual concerned, is at present largely unchecked. As John Cooper QC said in a legal opinion on precisely that issue, the security services are “presently allowed to literally say what they will to achieve their own ends, whether or not those ends are legal, democratic or in accordance with the rule of law. In addition to this, those who indulge in these activities are completely unaccountable to the citizen, to the Government, and even to a quasi-regulator or body charged with their oversight, such as the ISC. What is more, the victims of such defamation are likely to be the most vulnerable individuals, most likely detained under the most restrictive of circumstances. In essence, they are prisoners defamed by their controllers and captors. That is neither right, nor acceptable.”
	I want to give a real-life example to help illustrate why I believe that this is so important. British resident Shaker Aamer, whose wife and children are British citizens and live in south London, has been held in Guantanamo for more than 11 years, despite having been cleared for release by both the Bush and Obama Administrations. The Foreign Secretary has raised the case with the US on several occasions, and the Foreign Office has made it clear that
	“The government remains committed to securing Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK.”
	Given that the US has cleared him for release, a complicated process including multiple federal agencies, and the UK Government have made it clear that they want him to come home, one cannot help asking why Mr Aamer remains detained in Guantanamo, never having been charged or tried for any crimes. The conclusion that his US lawyer has reached is that Britain’s intelligence agencies have been defaming Mr Aamer to the US, passing on false information and accusing him of extremism, and that is what is holding up his release.
	Mr Aamer is being deprived of his liberty on the basis of lies being told about him that he is unable to challenge. He has therefore begun defamation action against the security services—action that could be pushed into a secret court under part 2 of the Bill, leaving him once again unable to confront his accusers or to challenge the evidence used by the Government against him. I would argue that, at the very least, it is important that a duty be placed on the Intelligence and Security Committee fully to investigate such claims. That would not be a solution in itself, but it could provide some small measure of recourse for those such as Mr Aamer who find themselves in the gravest of positions as a result of information passed behind their back.
	I will be very happy to hear if there are other ways of addressing this problem, but right now the advice that I am receiving from some of the legal people involved in the case is that they are not aware of any measure that would do so.

George Howarth: Perhaps some of my right hon. Friends will explain to the hon. Lady the powers that exist to deal with such cases, and deal with them shortly, one hopes. Does she think it would be right for a Committee of Parliament to act in a quasi-judicial or even wholly judicial role, which would be the effect of her amendment?

Caroline Lucas: I am not convinced that the Committee would be acting in a quasi-judicial role; I would share the right hon. Gentleman’s reservations were that to be so. I am honestly searching for a solution to the problem, and perhaps this is not the right one. However, I want to put on record the real concern that exists about the situation that Shaker Aamer finds himself in. If nothing else, I hope that if this is not the right route to take, Government Members will direct me towards the appropriate measures, because this case has been going on for very many years.

Julian Lewis: I wish to be helpful to the hon. Lady, and I think that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the body that she has in mind. All these tribunals, including those for communications issues and for complaints such as this one, are headed up by senior judges. I think she would find that they are a much more appropriate route. However, it is obviously very interesting to hear what she has to say about these worrying cases.

Caroline Lucas: In the interests of time, I will leave the matter there and pursue it via other avenues. I am grateful for the opportunity to have aired this really important case.

Menzies Campbell: I am entirely sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has said about that case. However, a statutory avenue is already available under the Regulation and Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which set up the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Further to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), a fellow member of the Committee, one might not be able to describe the proposed power that she wishes to provide as quasi-judicial, but it might possess a hybrid relationship in being both investigative and judicial, or in a position of seeking to create redress.
	Apart from that, there is a fundamental statutory point. The hon. Lady’s proposed subsection (4A) refers to a situation in which
	“a plausible claim has been made by or on behalf of an individual to the ISC that the Security Service…has disseminated any information to any recipient concerning any person that appears to be…materially false; and…harmful to the person defamed.”
	The breadth of that goes far beyond even the jurisdiction of any court in the United Kingdom of which I am aware. Proposed subsection (4B) says that
	“the ISC shall fully and expeditiously investigate the claim”—
	so it does involve an investigative function—
	“and, where the claim appears to be well founded, shall ensure that the misinformation is expeditiously corrected.”
	But by what means? The ISC is not in a position to implement any such action. The amendment is not legally well-founded. In any event, as has been pointed out, its scope goes far beyond anything that the Committee’s
	staff and resources would permit. Moreover, there is no indication of how the powers would be exercised or how they could ever be implemented.

Alan Beith: I want to consider briefly the restrictive wording of parts of clause 2 and the voluntary issue that has been raised by a number of Members.
	I served on the Intelligence and Security Committee for about 11 years from its very beginning. It was a slow and painful task to get the first generation of heads of agencies and civil servants from Departments to understand the Committee’s need for a deep understanding of the relevant matters in order for us to do our job effectively. Subsequent generations of heads of agencies were ready to involve the Committee more closely and to bring up operational matters, whatever the statute said. It did not take me long to realise that it was not possible for members of the Committee to do their job properly unless they understood how various kinds of operations were conducted and the constraints and problems faced by the agencies. In particular, it was not possible to discharge an important responsibility without an understanding of operational matters.
	One of the purposes of the ISC, where Members of both Houses of Parliament look closely at the work of agencies, is to give people on the outside—both in this place and in the community at large—a sense that Members who are there by democratic means are observing the agencies sufficiently closely to give confidence that their work is within the framework not only of the law, but of the ethics and principles by which we try to run our country. The background is that agencies were often accused of doing precisely the opposite in years gone by. Unless we can give people that confidence and say, “Yes, I have looked very closely at this matter and I do not think you need to be concerned about it,” the Committee will not be discharging properly one of its most important roles. We found that we had to look very closely at operational matters and that became easier as time went on.
	The work sometimes involves what are, in effect, ongoing intelligence operations. In some fields, the work never stops and an operation to do with a particular recurrent problem does not have a simple end, so the provision in clause 2(3)(a)(i) is restrictive.
	I fully understand how the Government have arrived at the word “voluntarily”. It would have been absurd if the wording had prevented the Committee from continuing to work closely with the agencies in the way it has done in recent years. That would have been ridiculous, so the word is there for a perfectly respectable reason. Indeed, things have been improved by the insistence that, if the Committee requests something, that does not by definition make it involuntary. However, I still think, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, that that is not the kind of language we want to see in the Bill. Nor does it give people outside the confidence that this Committee will be able to find out whether something is going wrong when it needs to do so, or that it can be relied on when it seeks to give assurance that all is reasonably well.
	The task of getting this right is by no means over. The memorandum of understanding may be able to deal with those issues better, but, even then, words are being put on paper and when that happens, as we have discovered, simple, practical and sensible ways of doing things may
	appear to be precluded. Moreover, when there is friction or tension, it becomes easier for the head of an agency or, at least as often—indeed, perhaps more often—a Minister or civil servant to say, “This goes beyond the memorandum of understanding. It is outwith the terms of the statute.” We have heard such language and the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who is a previous Chairman of the Committee, will remember how rigid some people in the relevant Departments could be from time to time.
	Ministers need to make it clear, as they have done to some extent in these discussions, that it is in the interests of the democratic accountability of these extremely important and valuable agencies that the public have confidence, not only in the agencies, but in that process of democratic accountability, circumscribed as it is by the need to protect the work of those agencies.

James Brokenshire: This has been a useful debate underlining the importance the House attaches to the scrutiny provided by the ISC and how it is being enhanced by the steps contemplated as a consequence of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, made the point about the scrutiny so far seen in the House and how we are seeking to strengthen it further.
	I shall respond first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and her amendment 71. As others have said, the essentially judicial function she seeks does not sit well within the ISC, which is intended to be a Committee of Parliament. It is not for the ISC to consider, much less determine, individual complaints about the intelligence services, especially given that there is already a body that can consider these matters and which we believe is well equipped to do so. Right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted the work of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is the appropriate route through which complaints should be made.
	The hon. Lady referred to the case of Shaker Aamer. I assure her that his case remains a high priority for the UK Government and we continue to make it clear to the US that we want him released and returned to the UK as a matter of priority. We continue to work with US counterparts to consider the implications for Mr Aamer’s case of the 2013 National Defence Authorisation Act. Discussions continue with senior officials within the US Administration. The Foreign Secretary raised Mr Aamer’s case numerous times with former Secretary of State Clinton and will continue to do so with Secretary of State Kerry. As the Foreign Secretary told Parliament last October, he and the Defence Secretary also made representations to the US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta last June.

Caroline Lucas: I appreciate the Minister’s rehearsing the Government’s commitment to getting Shaker Aamer back from Guantanamo. I have no doubt about that, but does he understand what the obstacle is? The US says he can come back here and the UK Government say we want him back. What, then, is the obstacle? Does he have any idea?

James Brokenshire: I can only say that decisions about the release of Mr Aamer rest entirely with the US Government. I underline that the British Government remain committed to engaging with the US with the
	aim of securing Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK as soon as possible. To conclude my remarks on the hon. Lady’s amendment, let me say that we believe there is an appropriate mechanism by which she or others can bring complaints to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
	On amendment 74 and pre-appointment hearings, I do not wish to go back over the lengthy debate we had in Committee on this issue. I can only restate several points I made then: pre-appointment hearings are a relatively new phenomenon in the UK; the Cabinet Office has published guidance on the process to be followed for such hearings; and at the moment the list of posts subject to those hearings relates to public bodies, such as the chair of Ofcom or the Social Security Advisory Committee. The pre-appointment process has never been used for the appointment of civil servants. The heads of the intelligence and security agencies are permanent secretary-level civil servants, so the recruitment process is expected to follow the process for the appointment of civil servants of such seniority. We judge that this continues to be the appropriate mechanism.
	On the Osmotherly rules, I made the point in Committee that the powers to withhold information from the ISC have been used sparingly and that we expect them to continue to be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Osmotherly rules set out categories of information, including information on officials’ personal views, as distinct from the views of Ministers, on policy options; information that could be supplied only after carrying out substantial research or at excessive cost; information about matters that are sub judice; and the papers of a previous Administration. The provisions in the Bill are necessary to safeguard the long-standing conventions that are reflected in the Osmotherly rules. We judge that the provisions, although they have been used only sparingly, remain appropriate.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) posed various questions. She asked whether the ISC can accept material and evidence anonymously. It can, but it might have doubts about what weight should be given to such evidence if it cannot be corroborated.
	The hon. Lady talked about the protection of members of staff. The staff of the ISC all go through developed vetting. They are therefore able to handle protectively marked material. That is a central part of their job, in the same way as it is for members of agencies and Departments.
	Agency heads are accountable to Parliament in the evidence that they provide to the ISC, including through oral evidence sessions and the upcoming public evidence sessions. Agency heads are accountable in the same way that permanent secretaries to Ministers are accountable for the decisions of their agencies.
	On amendment 76, the hon. Lady asked whether whistleblowers would be protected. They would not be protected, but it is important that we strike a balance between encouraging the flow of evidence to the ISC and giving effective immunity for individuals who breach legal obligations, including under the Official Secrets Act 1989.
	The hon. Lady asked whether the ISC can choose which witnesses can be called and whether it can compel witnesses to attend. At the moment, it cannot compel a particular individual to be a witness. However, the important element in the Bill is the power to compel information to be provided to the Committee. That is a powerful provision and an important step. In practice, the ISC, the agencies and others discuss and agree on who is the appropriate person to appear and give evidence on a particular point. The current practice is for the ISC to have regular oral evidence sessions with Ministers, agency heads and other senior officials.
	I have heard clearly the points that have been made about the word “voluntary”. The Government believe that our amendments provide clarity. We are in no way seeking to suggest that the powers of the ISC are not significant or that the steps in the Bill are not important in providing what this House wants to see, which is enhanced, robust scrutiny of the agencies and broader security issues across government. We believe that the Bill provides effective new powers that will enable enhanced scrutiny, provide confidence and add to the approaches that the ISC already takes.
	I want to put on the record my recognition of the work of the ISC in carrying out its duties. We believe that that work will be strengthened by the Bill and the Government amendments. I therefore encourage the House to support them.
	Amendment 56 agreed to.
	Amendments made: 57,page17,line4, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
	‘(6) The ISC may take evidence on oath, and for that purpose may administer oaths.’.
	Amendment 58,page17,line6, at end insert—
	‘Funding and other resources
	2A A Minister of the Crown—
	(a) may make payments to either House of Parliament in respect of any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, by either House in relation to the ISC,
	(b) may provide staff, accommodation or other resources to either House of Parliament for the purposes of the ISC,
	(c) may make payments, or provide staff, accommodation or other resources, to the ISC, or
	(d) may otherwise make payments, or provide staff, accommodation or other resources, to any person for the purposes of the ISC.’.
	Amendment 59,page18,line39, after ‘not’ insert ‘otherwise’.
	Amendment 60,page18,line42, at end insert—
	(za) the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that publication or disclosure would not be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters or any person carrying out activities falling within section 2(2),’.
	Amendment 61,page19,line5, at beginning insert—
	‘(1) Evidence given by a person who is a witness before the ISC may not be used in any civil or disciplinary proceedings, unless the evidence was given in bad faith.’.
	Amendment 62,page19,line6, leave out ‘, civil or disciplinary’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Clause 2
	 — 
	Main functions of the ISC

Amendment made: 55,page2,line21, after ‘ISC’, insert
	‘(whether or not in response to a request by the ISC)’.—
	(James Brokenshire.)
	Amendment proposed: 74,page2,line29, at end insert—
	‘(4A) The ISC shall consider the proposed appointment of the following, including by questioning the prospective appointee at a meeting of the ISC—
	(a) the Head of the Security Service;
	(b) the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service;
	(c) the Head of the Government Communications Headquarters; and
	(d) such other persons as the Prime Minister may direct.
	(4B) The ISC may consider the appropriateness of holding hearings considering each prospective appointee’s proposed appointment in public.’.—(Diana Johnson.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 166, Noes 249.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2
	 — 
	Consequential provision

Amendments made: 63,page19,line31, at end insert ‘, and
	(b) after “Committee” insert “of Parliament”.’.
	Amendment 64,page20,line18, at end insert ‘, and
	(b) after “Committee” insert “of Parliament”.’.
	Amendment 65,page21,line35, leave out ‘7(2)’ and insert ‘7(1)’.—(James Brokenshire.)
	Third Reading
	Queen’s consent signified.

Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I commend the Bill in its present form to the House.
	The first point to reflect on, in considering the Bill in its entirety, is the debt we owe to our security and intelligence services. Unfortunately, we face unprecedented threats at different times from various enemies, both at home and abroad. It is extremely important that we have highly efficient intelligence and security services to protect the lives of our citizens and the normal civilised business of the country. We have to support the intelligence services on which we rely so heavily.
	Secondly, this country upholds the highest standards of human rights in this area of its activities, as in other areas. We all expect those who work in our intelligence and security services to have the same regard to the values that we are defending as everyone else does—that we do have regard to the rule of law. The British Government are, and, as far I am aware, always have been, firmly against the use of torture, firmly against unlawful and extraordinary rendition, and firmly against practices on which some of our allies take a more relaxed
	view. I would like to think that the British intelligence and security services are not only among the best in the world, but uphold much higher standards in the way they conduct themselves than is true of the vast majority of the nation states of the world.
	The vast majority of Members agree that we are grateful to the security services, and that it is important that they are held as accountable as everyone else. We follow another principle that the Government, as far as possible, hold dear, which is that of transparency: avoiding unnecessary secrecy wherever possible, and being as open in our dealings with the public in every aspect of our public life. Plainly, that has to be modified to a certain extent to protect the absolutely essential secrecy that our security services need, and which the people who co-operate with them, the agents who help us and the various people we have to rely on throughout the world, need.
	I believe that the part of the Bill that we will look back on with greatest pleasure is the considerable steps we are taking to give extra powers to the Intelligence and Security Committee. In ensuring that the security services are held accountable, accountability to Parliament is extremely important. I will not rehearse all the arguments, which have taken most of today, but the Committee is now to be truly a Committee of Parliament. The House of Commons will be able to elect the membership—on the nomination of the Prime Minister, but members will be appointed by parliamentary vote. The Prime Minister’s nomination is a necessary precaution in case some unknown feature of a Member of Parliament’s background might make him or her a less suitable member of the Committee than would otherwise be the case.
	As we have seen over the years, the Intelligence and Security Committee is one of the most important Committees of the House. Its membership, not surprisingly, tends to comprise heavyweight individuals from all parts of the House of Commons, with a membership that is highly respected in all parts of the House for the work it tries to do. However, I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department set out in the debate. We have examined in detail the various processes that we now have in hand to enable the Committee to require evidence to be given to it and to hold the security services thoroughly to account, in all the sensible circumstances that can be managed, while at the same time ensuring that no risk is posed to national safety and national security.
	The most controversial part of the Bill is the one we debated on Monday, in which we seek to make the security and intelligence services more accountable to the judiciary and courts of this country, particularly as in the last few years a growing number of people have alleged before our courts malpractice against the security services and sought substantial damages for events in which they say our security services were complicit. Things are plainly unsatisfactory as they stand, and we have all quoted many distinguished members of the judiciary to illustrate that. Opponents persuade themselves that they are so against the principle of closed proceedings of any kind that they wish to keep the present law, which they regard as satisfactory.
	I am afraid I am still at the stage where I do not see how on earth we can say that the present law is satisfactory. People bring claims and are prepared to give evidence, as they are perfectly entitled to, in support of them.
	The nature of the evidence that the security and intelligence services and the Government would wish to produce to defend some of those claims is of the kind that cannot possibly be given in open court. The courts have made it clear that sometimes there is indeed scope for closed proceedings, but that they cannot be held through an ordinary civil action unless Parliament has decided the circumstances in which these should be allowed.
	We already have closed proceedings in this country in several areas—there are about 14 instances of different jurisdictions where we have closed proceedings, largely in the immigration field. It is of course less than perfect justice, because the only possible challenge to the evidence is from special advocates who have been security cleared, and they are not as free as they would be in an open court case to take full instructions from their clients. Everybody knows that, but in fact they have more weight as advocates than most people appreciate. Given the circumstances, most judges are prepared to listen to challenges, realising that they have to bear in mind that they need to be particularly scrupulous, because there are limitations in how far the evidence is being tested before them.
	The best test is that special advocates win in closed sessions—I have been fond of citing one or two instances as these proceedings have gone along. The last case that the Government lost—that of Abu Qatada, which caused a tremendous public controversy and still is—was lost before a judge, Mr Justice Mitting, who does not have the reputation of being a melting-heart liberal. Abu Qatada won in closed proceedings in a British court, defeating my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government in our attempts to remove him for a trial in Jordan. Obviously the judge was not satisfied that torture would not play a part in the proceedings if Abu Qatada was sent there. The idea that Ministers have the ability to present things to a judge in circumstances where the closed advocates have no hope is mistaken. What we will get is a judgment, whereas what we get at the moment is silence.
	In the main, we have been attacked by people who say how much they deplore secrecy and silence, yet the effect of being granted a public interest immunity certificate, which is the only course open to Ministers wishing to withhold evidence that could damage national security, is total silence. The evidence cannot be used by the claimants, cannot be taken into account by the judge and is not available to the defence. As we all know, cases are being brought with increasing regularity in which the Government have no alternative but to offer no defence, because no evidence can be called, and then to start negotiating the amount money to be paid in compensation.
	I have never given exact figures for the compensation involved—although some have appeared following interviews with me—because the claimants usually want to enter into confidentiality agreements on the settlement. However, there is no harm in telling the House that millions of pounds are being paid out to claimants whose cases have never been tested or challenged. I make no apology for repeating my suspicion—one that is held by most objective people—that there is a serious risk that some of the money is finding its way to very undesirable quarters, and probably to terrorist groups in the case of certain plaintiffs. I am not talking about all of them, and I will not say which of them this applies
	to—that was never decided by the courts—but some of those people will have links to organisations that will have some of that money on them. I do not think that the public understand why the Government cannot defend themselves. That gives rise to genuine disquiet among perfectly intelligent liberal members of the general public.
	We have had a long, satisfactory debate, during which the Bill has been transformed in both Houses. We are still not in total agreement on the wording, but we agree on the principles. The judge will have the widest possible discretion to decide that he is going to hear evidence in closed proceedings only when it is relevant and has to be heard to decide the case, and when it would damage national security if it were given to the wider world. Furthermore, the just and effective administration of justice will have to be served by hearing it in private. I will not repeat all the arguments that were put on Monday.
	The overall effect of the Bill will be to improve the reassurance that we can give to the public and to the world that we uphold the highest standards in this country, and that we seek to maintain them by holding accountable those who work on our behalf. I believe that the outcome is not only legally sound but an eminently sensible common-sense solution to the obvious practical problems that arise when we wish to combine the rule of law with the protection of national safety and security. I commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) will match the exemplary brevity of the Minister without Portfolio, and it is important that he should do so, because at least five or six right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and we must conclude the debate by 5 o’clock.

Andy Slaughter: I am most grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister without Portfolio did not give way to me earlier. He has again made the assertion that the Government are being forced to settle cases, but his assertion would have more appeal if they did not regularly settle cases before exhausting all their options and before applying for a strike-out. I do not think that his admonitions about people seeking confidentiality agreements to hide the amount of compensation that they were getting could apply to Mr Belhaj, for example. The Minister is to some extent peddling damaged goods again, and that is regrettable as he is one of the last defenders of human rights in his party. I thought he might have had a little more to say about article 6 and the common law right to a fair trial. I must get on, however; I am aware of the Speaker’s request.
	I want to begin with thanks. This is not a long Bill but it is a difficult one, given the nature and complexity of its subject. It touches on two fundamental concepts: national security, and the fairness and openness of justice system, which we prize and for which this country is still regarded as a role model. In addition to the Front-Bench teams who have laboured hard—exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull
	North (Diana Johnson), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and the Minister without Portfolio—we have had the benefit of the great expertise of some senior Back Benchers.
	I mention in particular, although they are not here, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I mention, too, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, several of whom are here, particularly the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who served and brought their experience to bear on that Committee. Then, of course, there is my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) and his colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, who have been forensic in their scrutiny of this Bill since it emerged as a Green Paper almost 18 months ago. We have had the advice of eminent lawyers too numerous to mention and all pro bono. I must, however, mention Tony Peto, who not only advised members of all parties but found time to co-author with the hon. Member for Chichester a book, “Neither Just nor Secure”, in time for the Committee stage. Copies, I am told, are still available.
	There is substantial agreement on two parts of Bill. Part 1 improves the scrutiny of our intelligence services—something that has come a long way since they first emerged from the shadows in 1994. A point well made by ISC members on the Public Bill Committee was that there is a developing relationship between Parliament and the security services, which tries to balance the need for scrutiny with the effectiveness of the vital job those agencies do. The Bill takes that a step forward in enhancing accountability: it is too little and too slow for some, but it is moving in the right direction.
	The clauses reforming the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction seek to re-assert the control principle and to protect the security interests of allied countries—not only in their interest but ours, since the success of our security services relies on close working relationships with their equivalents overseas. Thus far we agree, but how can that explain the definition of sensitive information in clause 15 as information relating to “an intelligence service” rather than to “a foreign intelligence service” as our amendment proposed? It looks like another attempt gratuitously to extend the protection given to secret information for reasons other than those given. It is a pity we did not have time to debate that matter further—perhaps even now, the Government will, of their own volition, look at that point.
	That brings me to the contentious part of the Bill—that relating to closed material procedures—which regrettably leaves this House in a far worse condition than it was when it arrived. Not only have the key safeguards added to the Bill by the other place on the advice of the JCHR been removed, but new and alarming departures from the normal standards of civil justice have been put on the face of the Bill. This has been done as late and as obliquely as the Government could get away with. I hope their lordships will when the Bill returns to them later this month reimpose their necessary amendments and fillet the unwelcome additions.
	There is not time to rehearse every attempt at mitigating the effect of secret courts that the Government have rejected, but in brief we have had 18 months of feigned
	U-turns, compromises and Pauline conversions from the Minister without Portfolio. In the end, they amounted to two important but not fundamental ameliorations. The door was opened to judicial discretion by accepting the Lords amendment on “may” instead of “must” at the entry to clause 6. Citizens will, after a series of wobbles and changes of heart, now have the same status as the Secretary of State to apply to enter a CMP. The two core changes sought by the Opposition in support of the other place have been firmly rejected: judicial balancing between the interests of national security and fair and open justice at the gateway to the CMP; and requiring the court to look at other more open, more tested and more equal ways of proceeding to trial before invoking the CMP—the so-called last resort.
	Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Government were also unwilling to concede considering public interest immunity as a first option, judicial balancing of evidence once the CMP process was under way or to support a sensible renewal clause designed to give parliamentary scrutiny to this botched-together part of the Bill. These are all matters to which their lordships, including some of the finest legal brains in the country, will wish to address their minds. I hope and trust they will renew their attempt to make this part of the Bill work in the interests both of national security and open and equal justice. I hope—I am sure—they will not be deceived by the Government’s flimsy attempts to make purported concessions on these points.
	The recent Government amendment 47, to ask the court to consider whether the Secretary of State has considered PII, is purely cosmetic. The hon. Member for Chichester described it as bath-time activity for the Minister without Portfolio—and it certainly comes with the customary large amount of soap. Similarly, clause 7, inserted in Committee, purports to challenge the CMP process continually and expressly on disclosure being completed. The court could do that of its own motion in any event, but it in no way mirrors the balancing act called for in our amendment 38, which was defeated late on Monday evening.
	Have these purported concessions been presented to appease the Daily Mail, or—by way of winning the support of the members of the junior coalition party—the Liberal Democrat party conference? If so, they have done neither. The press, from left to right, remains hostile to this part of the Bill in its current form.
	This weekend, the Liberal Democrats—when they are not reviewing their process for leadership selection—will vote again on a motion that states, first,
	“Liberal Democrat parliamentarians to vote to delete Part II of the Justice and Security Bill”,
	and, secondly,
	“Party policy to remain that the Liberal Democrats will repeal Part II of the Justice and Security Act (if so enacted) as soon as we are in a position to do so.”
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) may have saved his skin by his votes on Monday, but 50 of his colleagues may find the air in Brighton less sweet. Even the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) may find his comment on Second Reading coming back to haunt him. He asked the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)
	“whether he understands that the detailed amendments made in the House of Lords have been regarded by many people as being entirely favourable and reasonable.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 685, c. 713.]

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman has again made references to matters connected with the Liberal Democrats in regard to which he was factually wrong, but I do not have time to correct them all. However, may I take him up on his point about our being “in a position to do so”? Let us say that after the next election there were some Labour involvement in the resulting Government. Would he then commit himself to repealing part 2, or is he in favour of it when it comes down to it?

Andy Slaughter: I certainly would not commit myself to repealing part 2, because it includes the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which we support.
	Finally, let me deal with the new heresies that have been slipped into the Bill during its passage in the House of Commons. I have time only to raise the issues rather than exploring them; further comment must be a matter for the other place.
	The first of those issues, which was raised by us in Committee but not dealt with satisfactorily by the Minister, relates to clause 6(4)(a), which currently sets as a condition precedent to the court’s ordering a CMP that
	“a party to the proceedings…would be required to disclose sensitive material in the course of proceedings to another person (whether or not another party to the proceedings)”.
	We fear that the provision will be used in part to prevent the use of confidentiality rings, allowing the citizen's own lawyer to be excluded from receiving information. It was that eventuality that we sought to prevent through our amendment 28, which was not reached on Monday but which would have added the words
	“and such disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security”.
	Our second significant concern relates to Government amendment 46, which was tabled only last week and was introduced to the Bill on Monday. There has been no opportunity to debate the amendment, which adds to clause 6(7) the phrase
	“or on such material that the applicant would be required to disclose'”.
	That appears to allow an application for a CMP to be made on the basis of irrelevant material which is not the sensitive material that the party applying—usually the Secretary of State—fears having to disclose. It may therefore allow the court to take into consideration material that is merely embarrassing or damaging to international relations. The Government have excluded such material from consideration in the CMP, but it seems it may now be adduced to trigger the process.
	If we are right about that, there are other ramifications. The gisting requirements—which, as the special advocates have pointed out in their latest submission, are already very weak in the Bill—ask the court to consider, not to require, a gist, and thus allow a case to be decided entirely on the basis of evidence that one party has had no right to challenge. In addition, a gist need only be made of material that is disclosable. That presents the possibility of a CMP being granted on the basis of non-disclosable material, and the court not even being asked to consider whether it is necessary to gist that material to the open lawyer or client.
	This is not so much a bad Bill as a Bill with a bad heart. We will not be voting against Third Reading, because there is much in part 1 that we support, but we believe that even at this stage the clauses on CMPs can be improved—indeed, must be improved. We look to the other place once again to provide the necessary heart massage. We hope that the Justice and Security Act will secure an effective way of trying difficult cases with serious national security implications without jeopardising hard-won and much-prized principles of fair and open justice. We have never excluded the CMP option, but we believe that it is such an affront to the basic, open and fair principles of English common law that it must be confined to the tiny minority of cases in which proper judicial discretion and other tried and tested methods have been exhausted.

Menzies Campbell: Part 1 of this Bill is a logical extension of a process that began approximately 20 years ago. The development of the relationship between the Intelligence and Security Committee and the services, based on respect but also on a clear understanding of their respective responsibilities, has been a substantial and important constitutional development, and nothing should take away from that.
	The Minister without Portfolio described me as a heavyweight. It is a description I have been trying to avoid as I get older, for reasons he will readily understand, but there is no doubt that the matter we are discussing causes considerable controversy, and let me begin by saying I do not like part 2 of the Bill. Quite often we have to pass legislation that we do not like, however, because in our judgment it is necessary to do so, as the balance favours having the legislation. That is the principle on which I base my conclusion in this case, for which I will not be the darling of the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, not least because I am going back to my constituency—not to prepare for government, but to explain the consequences of the Government’s decision to close the Royal Air Force base there, which has been a source of great pride and has made an enormous contribution to the life of the community. What I will say and do is contrary to the expressed—and potential—views of the Liberal Democrat conference. I respect those views, but I think I am entitled to expect in return that my party colleagues will respect mine.
	I base my views on this difficult matter on three influences: first, the fact that I have been a member of the ISC for some years; secondly, my experience as a Member of this House; and, thirdly, the fact that the law has been my trade since 1968 and I believe I know and understand it as well as any other Member of this House. I also believe that I have done as much as anyone to pursue the objectives of ensuring the protection of the citizen and the preservation of human rights.
	The implication that those of us who support this legislation do so out of a slavish willingness to advance the interests of the United States has caused me some resentment, as has the suggestion that we are a cat’s-paw of the intelligence services. Not only are these claims insulting, but in my case they are palpably wrong. In recent years, for example, I have argued very strongly for an alteration in the extradition arrangements between
	our two countries, and 10 years ago almost to the day I and the then leader of my party were leading the opposition to the too-close association with George W. Bush and the United States in the unhappy venture into Iraq.
	However, when senior officials in the current American Administration look us in the eye and tell us that their apprehension about the confidentiality of their sources is influencing the quality of the intelligence they are willing to share with the United Kingdom, should we ignore or dismiss that? If that position is then supported by American agencies themselves, should we ignore or dismiss it? When the UK’s agencies confirm under cross-examination their impression that the quality of shared intelligence with the United States has diminished, should we ignore or dismiss that? When the Americans say they are concerned about the risk to the lives of their agents or the revealing of techniques and procedures, should we ignore or dismiss that?
	Do I like closed material proceedings? I do not. But do I think public interest immunity certificates are the answer? I most certainly do not. I have re-read chapter 13 of the Scott inquiry into arms to Iraq. It is heavyweight reading, but if any Members wish to become advocates for the value and validity of PII, I recommend they read it and find out the true implications.
	If one wants to avoid embarrassment, a PII certificate is one of the most effective ways of doing so. If one wants to prevent a litigant from accessing evidence that might assist that person in establishing a case, PII is a very convenient way of doing so. One thing that has interested me more than anything else in this rather controversial debate has been the fact that many of the interested parties that now express confidence in public interest immunity certificates have previously been the first to criticise them.
	The Bill has improved. Has it improved as much as I would prefer? Of course not, but how many times can any one of us put our hand on our heart and say that the piece of legislation for which we have voted is precisely and exactly as we would have wished? We are at a crossroads between principle and necessity, and we have to ask whether the balance that has now been struck is acceptable. That, essentially, is a question of individual judgement and it is that individual judgement that our constituents send us to this place to exercise every time we are faced with a dilemma of the kind the Bill obviously creates. Why do I say that? The balance struck is sufficient because of the developed and controlling role of the judiciary or the judge in any case and because of the palpable independence of the judiciary in these matters. We need only consider the Binyam Mohamed case, the observations of the Master of the Rolls and the extent to which the Government of the day were unable to escape the consequences of the action raised against them.
	As is often the case, distinguished lawyers of sound judgment take different views of these matters. Sometimes, it seems to me that it is like a game of political contract bridge: “If you play your 700 lawyers and my good friend Baroness Kennedy, I will play my Ken Clarke and my Lord Woolf in an attempt to outbid you.” Such decisions are often as much a matter of instinct as logic.
	Closed material proceedings have been described as Kafkaesque, but I doubt that those who say so have read Kafka. Others have said that they illustrate a form
	of Soviet-style justice, but a many litigants and accused persons in the Soviet system would be perfectly happy to swap their arrangements for those in this country, both north and south of the border. I would prefer not to have closed material proceedings, but I am satisfied that in this case the protections are such that they are justified.

Edward Leigh: I very much respect the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but is he satisfied, as a Liberal, with the notion that from now on a litigant will not be allowed to look at the evidence in their case and cross-examine it on the basis that it will be made available to them? After all, is that not quite a serious procedure that is quite different from the defence withdrawing a piece of evidence or not adducing it at all?

Menzies Campbell: It is a procedure that already exists in our law. If my hon. Friend is concerned about the universal application of the principle, that argument was lost some time ago.

Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, that argument was lost a long time ago, but is that a reason to pass the Bill into law when it makes the situation worse? Once again, it suggests that the view of Parliament is that somehow it is okay to go through a judicial process in which the defendant is not fully aware of the case against them and in which the public is totally unaware of the issue. It sets a dangerous precedent to have any avoidable secrecy in the judicial system.

Menzies Campbell: Since the hon. Gentleman puts the point that way, let us turn it around and ask what he would do. Would he have elements of the conduct and the sources of the security services—sensitive, and perhaps at great risk to those who provide human intelligence—exposed in our courts? That seems to me the only possible alternative, or else, as has been suggested, we simply say there is a financial cost to be borne and we will settle any case that may have the consequence of causing such sensitive information to be revealed. That is not justice, as I understand it. That is the failure of the judicial system to reflect the reality of the proceedings which are brought before us.

Edward Leigh: It is always open to the defendant to choose not to adduce evidence to support his case. If the state does not want to adduce the evidence, nobody is suggesting that it has to reveal the sources of agents or information. The state simply does not produce it.

Menzies Campbell: But if the case raises the kind of issues that were raised in the case of Binyam Mohamed, what does my hon. Friend think the response would be if the state said, “We’re not producing any evidence at all”? What inference does he think people would draw if no defence was mounted? Of course the inference drawn would inevitably be one of guilt.
	I finish by saying this: a lot has happened since the twin towers in New York were bombed and thousands of people died. Not all of it could be described as something of which we are proud, but the one thing that certainly happened then and which was reflected in many of the speeches that were made here on the special occasion when Parliament was summoned, and much of what has happened since then, has demonstrated
	that things were irretrievably and irrevocably changed as a result of that. We have only to look at the incidence of proceedings being taken in this country in relation to acts of terrorism or proposed acts of terrorism to realise the extent of that change. That is why, although I have no love for this legislation, I believe it is appropriate.

David Winnick: I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). In the course of his remarks he said that we must all exercise our judgment, and like other right hon. and hon. Members I do so today. If I may say so without being misunderstood, the right hon. and learned Gentleman put a more reasoned case than did the Minister, but I am strongly opposed to the measure, which, however it is dressed up, is a denial of a system of justice that has been built up in this country over centuries. I have no doubt that the Bill will be carried today, and in due course it is likely to be carried into law, but it will be a poor day for Parliament when it is.
	I speak as a non-lawyer. Whatever limited legal work I have done outside the House between seats, I am not qualified as a lawyer, but I understand and I probably understood from the very beginning that there are certain basic rights when a person is accused—the right of defendants and their counsel to know the full case and the evidence against them. As I said, this has been built up over centuries in this country and it is now being undermined. However limited the cases may be, some defendants will not be able to have that right. I consider that very unfortunate indeed.
	Under closed material procedure, special advocates will be appointed instead of counsel appointed in the normal way. Defendants will not know the evidence against them, nor will their counsel or solicitors. It is interesting to note that even special advocates who have operated in other fields that have developed in the past few years have argued, as the Minister knows, that that is an unfair way of proceeding.
	We are supposed to be satisfied that only a limited number of cases will be dealt with in such a way, but that does not satisfy me. If it is only one case, in my view that will be one too many. It is all very well the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife being satisfied—as I have said, I respect him and his integrity—but why have 700 lawyers, including a large number of QCs, indicated that they oppose it? Why has the Joint Committee on Human Rights made it clear that it is not satisfied with the outcome? Can they all simply be dismissed as some sort of civil liberties lobby that does not know what it is talking about?
	We know that the basis for what has been brought before us is the cases of rendition, torture and the alleged complicity of British security personnel. Those cases have been debated on various occasions in the House of Commons, and I have taken part in those debates, but is it not important that we parliamentarians and, more importantly, the British public know whether or not the allegations are true? The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife, in defending his position, said that if we do not follow what is proposed we will not get the necessary intelligence information from the United States. Are we really going to decide on
	that basis? Are we really going to decide that what has been built up over centuries, the right of defendants to fair proceedings and the right of their counsel to know what is going on at every stage, should be thrown overboard and into the dustbin because otherwise the United States might not provide us with intelligence information? And is it in their interests not to do so?
	I in no way underestimate the acute terrorist danger facing this country. The atrocities of 7/7 came as no surprise to me, and I am sure that is the view of other Members who anticipated, as I did, that at some stage there would be a terrorist attack. Indeed, it might occur again—who knows? Yes, we are faced with an acute terrorist danger. I do not challenge that at all. They are demented, murderous psychopaths who want to bring death and destruction to our people. But if Parliament has a duty to defend our citizens, which indeed it does, I take the view that it has another duty and another obligation: to defend the rule of law and the traditional rights that have been built up in this country. That is why I cannot support the measure before us today. I believe that it is wrong and that it undermines so much of the British justice system that I think that we should be ashamed if it gets on to the statute book. Whatever I can do as one Member to show my opposition to the Bill, I will do it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: The debate will finish no later than 5 o’clock, so can all Members please show time restraint in order to allow everyone who wishes to speak to do so.

Julian Lewis: I will not go down the route that has so far been followed in this Third Reading debate, other than to observe that we must never forget that we are talking about civil cases, not criminal cases. They are not cases affecting people’s life and liberty; they are cases in which people, sometimes extremely unsavoury people with links to extremely dangerous organisations, are walking away with very large sums of public money. That is not a situation that can be allowed to continue. If the Opposition, in their heart, did not know that that was true, they would divide the House tonight, but they are not going to do so.
	Instead, I will concentrate briefly on part 1, which strengthens the Intelligence and Security Committee. I believe that it was no coincidence that part 1 was added to the Bill, because there are two distinct and separate elements to the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said, in what I must say was a masterly exposition of his position and, I think, that of most thoughtful people on this side of the argument about closed material proceedings, the consideration is not that there is an ideal answer, or even a satisfactory answer, but that all we can do is choose the least worst answer. To make that least worst answer to the problem more palatable, the strengthening of the ISC was added to the Bill.
	I make no apology to the Minister for coming back to something that I, and others, raised quite strongly on Report: if the ISC is indeed to be strengthened, it must
	receive the resources it needs to carry out that strengthened and increased role. For those who did not hear me say it earlier, I remind the House that the ISC has only eight members of staff, and it has to pursue a number of inquiries and investigations every year, as well as its major annual report. That compares very unfavourably with the staff support for other Committees and inquiries, such as the 14 staff members for the detainee inquiry, which had only one specific issue to investigate, and the 12 staff members for the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	The ISC is currently funded to the tune of £750,000 a year. In the impact assessment published with the Bill, the Government cited a revised figure of £1.3 million that reflected their estimation of what the ISC would need to carry out the extra duties that are being placed on it in order to reassure the public that proper scrutiny is being carried out. The figure that is actually being offered is £850,000—an increase of just over one seventh on the existing budget. This would continue to leave the ISC worse off than all its international counterparts and worse off than the bodies that I listed. This is our last opportunity publicly to press the Government to commit to a substantive increase in resources. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government’s own published impact assessment will not be discarded when it is convenient to do so once this difficult Bill has been enacted.
	I conclude—earlier than I would have liked, but I feel that I must—with a single observation. Everybody agrees that the contribution made to the evolution of this Bill by the Members of the upper House has been very considerable. Who can seriously maintain that that sort of expertise would be available to people on either side of the argument if we had undermined, restructured and, in effect, destroyed the upper House in the way that was so irresponsibly proposed? If this Bill ends up being better when it gets on to the statute book than it was when initially proposed, that will be in large measure due to the improvements made in another place. We therefore have reason to be grateful that the other place is available, and will remain so in the indefinite future, to assist us in the development of controversial and complex legislation such as this Bill.

George Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who brought his customary forensic skills to bear in his description of what has happened in relation to the Bill. I entirely accept his point about the resources that we will need to do the job properly.
	I have been a member of the Committee since 2005. When we have had the opportunity to discuss oversight with parliamentarians from other parts of the world, they have always expressed envy for our system. I think that our system is now even more enviable. I am proud to be a member of the Committee and think that the changes will result in our being able, resources permitting, to do a better job than we have done so far.
	On part 2, as the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said in a customarily elegant and well-judged speech, in the best of worlds nobody would want to support closed material proceedings. He explained very well the particular circumstances in which many of us think they are necessary.
	I have been struck in particular by how the views of people such as David Anderson QC have changed. He started out by saying that they were not acceptable and that there was no place for them in our legal system. He then had the opportunity to inspect the files of the cases pending and, as a result, he ended up with the same conclusion—in fact, it was almost identical—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, namely that there is no ideal solution, so we have to make a choice between bad and worse, which is, in effect, what we have done.
	I echo what the hon. Member for New Forest East has said. I have sat through much of the debate on this Bill, although some of us were not allowed on the Bill Committee, so I did not have the opportunity to debate it there. Much of the tone and rhetoric of the debate on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading would have been entirely appropriate if we had been discussing criminal proceedings, but we are talking about civil proceedings. The problem that we have to come to terms with is that, because the Government are unable to defend themselves in civil proceedings—some of those involved may be of good character, while others may be of doubtful character—they end up spending millions of pounds in compensation that might not be paid in other cases, but certainly would in others.
	In conclusion, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on the Front Bench talked earlier about his amendment—which I and other right hon. Friends opposed on Monday evening—to, in effect, adopt the Wiley test for fair and open proceedings. He has failed to convince me repeatedly about such a test when the alternative is closed material proceedings. That makes no sense to me whatsoever. The real alternative, as the Minister without Portfolio said in his opening speech, is public interest immunity orders, which would mean that nothing got in front of a court or a judge. That is the choice. This is a better Bill than it was when it came from the other place. If there is no Division, I will support the Bill through my non-vote.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I think there are still three Members standing.

Julian Huppert: It is fascinating to follow Members’ comments on the internal dynamics of all parties, but I will not comment on them. I am not a fan of closed material proceedings, for reasons that have been expressed. I will not go through all the discussions we have had during the Bill’s previous stages.
	The point has been well made that the measure does not apply to criminal cases, but there is a view that it does in some cases. We are still waiting for absolute clarity on whether it applies to cases of liberty and habeas corpus. I am sure that the Minister without Portfolio will be able to give us the latest update on that. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), made it clear in Committee that the position has changed somewhat.
	Even without that, there are lots of cases where this is already in our law and which I find even more alarming, because they affect people’s liberty much more. We
	heard on Monday from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about a Special Immigration Appeals Commission case in his constituency. I remember talking to him about it two years ago, when his constituent was under detention during the period of the case, which was based on closed material proceedings, under legislation introduced by the previous Government. As I understand it, two years on the constituent is still being detained under the same legislation, because of evidence he has not had the chance to see. Whatever we think about a civil case, where money is involved, I hope that everyone here would say that a case involving two years of somebody’s life—curfews and the sort of internal exile that we saw with control orders and, to a lesser extent, terrorism prevention and investigation measures—is more serious. We should not allow ourselves to ignore that.
	The Bill has been on a long journey and in that time it has got a lot better. Since the Green Paper, a huge number of changes have been made to what material would be excluded. There was the incredibly important switch from the language of public interest in keeping something quiet to the language of national security, which was definitely a step in the right direction. I do not think that anybody in the House wants to see silenced information that would just be embarrassing to the Government. I am sure that Governments would be quite capable of arguing that public interest includes their not being embarrassed too often.
	It is also important that we have excluded inquests. It is right that we say to a family who want to know happened to a loved one that they will definitely know the truth and that they will not be told, “Something happened, but we can’t tell you.” It was a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), but I was surprised that he, along with some of his Labour colleagues and some Conservative support, wished to bring inquests back within the scope of the Bill. I am very pleased that that amendment was not put. Had it been, I hope it would have been defeated thoroughly.
	We saw further changes in the Lords. I pay great tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its sterling efforts. There are interesting questions about how the Government and the Joint Committee might work together more on some of these issues. We have had the slightly unusual case where the Joint Committee made some suggestions, the Government claimed to have satisfied them and the Joint Committee disagreed, but all this happened at a very slow pace. Perhaps there should be some way for the Committee, its Chair or the legal adviser to talk to the Government early on about draft amendments and to say, “Yes, this would achieve what we are trying to do, but with some wording differences”, as opposed to disagreeing fundamentally on whether it achieves the same thing.

Simon Hughes: As a new member of the Joint Committee, and with the Chairman in his place, I would like to say that we would certainly like a routine system that gives us time to look at the Bill and to report, not just to the Government but to the House, so that we can have a proper debate that does not get curtailed or circumscribed because there is no time to do either those jobs properly.

Julian Huppert: I agree. That is now firmly on the record.
	As a result of the Joint Committee’s work in the Lords, we saw the switch from “must” to “may”, which gave judicial discretion. That was one of the key changes made to the Bill. As a result of our efforts in the Commons, that led to full equality of arms and the reporting and review process, which the Minister agreed to take away and then came up with. It is definitely moving in the right direction, but there is further to go. I have mentioned the clarity on the subject of habeas corpus, but there is still the issue of a renewal process, be it annual renewal or five-yearly renewal, to give the House the chance to say, “Is it doing just what its proponents want it to do, or is it going further, as many of us feared it would?”
	There have been several votes on the principle of the Bill, including one in the House of Lords, when my colleagues were joined by a total of two Labour peers and one teller and five others, and lost quite convincingly. It is a shame that amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), was not taken on Monday, because it would have given the House the chance to have that vote. I pressed the same principle in Committee. I hope that the Lords will now step up and do more on this. Part 1 is a good step forward; part 2 is not. I hope that in the process of ping-pong we will be able to make further progress, because sadly it seems that it will pass through this House.

Nigel Evans: There are still two Members left to speak. I call Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think you are asking me to be very brief.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am suggesting that you split the time limit.

Jeremy Corbyn: Oh, you are asking me to do maths as well. I will be extremely brief.
	I have no quarrel with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in respect of his sincerity, honesty or support for human rights or how he put his case today. I disagree with his final point, but I have no quarrel with the judgment he reached or why he reached it, because I have observed him and his general approach to human rights in the House for a long time. When I say that I do not agree with him, it is not out of anger; it is out of sorrow. I am sure that in the next five minutes he will change his mind and take a different approach, or perhaps he will not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) put it well when he said that the House has to make decisions on important issues of human rights, liberty, the rule of law and the role of Parliament. Successively over the past 30 years, and even before that, we have enshrined in law on many occasions various forms of secrecy, denials of justice and denials of evidence, and people have been wrongly prosecuted as a result. There is a litany of miscarriages of justice that many Members of this House have been involved in over many years, most of which have centred on withholding evidence, secrecy or, in some cases, confessional evidence.
	Since 2001, there has been a significant game change. Draconian anti-terror laws have been introduced in this country and many others. As a result, the most grotesque miscarriages of justice have taken place, including Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition. All the legislation has been enshrined on the basis that we have to protect the security services and prevent what they do from seeing the light of day.
	As I understand it, the Government’s position is that they cannot defend cases where there has been British involvement with other security services in the abuse of human rights when the individuals involved seek restitution in the British courts because it would mean identifying where their evidence came from. They have therefore paid out millions of pounds. Instead of admitting that we have been a party to human rights abuses, we are passing legislation to bring a new process into law.
	I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), when he said that the Bill is not as bad as when it started its journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has done a lot of good work to improve the Bill, as he has for many other pieces of legislation.
	However, I feel that the Bill sends out the wrong message. We should have had a debate and a vote on the removal of part 2 on Monday. It is regrettable that we did not. I am opposed to the Bill because I do not like the secrecy or the protection of those who commit human rights abuses, whether they be in the pay of this state, another state or somebody else. The use of open courts and criminal law where appropriate is far more satisfactory. I therefore register my dissent against the Bill.

John McDonnell: I am sorry to intervene late in my hon. Friend’s speech. Not only did we not vote on part 2; we did not even reach the provisions on Norwich Pharmacal. That means that a foreign power can now determine whether a British court can expose wrongdoings that take place under the auspices of that foreign power.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a strong point and it is well put. The relationship with other security services appears to take precedence over rights, independence and justice in this country.
	For the reasons I have given and for many others that would take up too much time, I have grave concerns about the Bill. We have a duty as parliamentarians to defend human rights and liberty, and not to cover up injustice and wrongdoing, which this Bill could end up doing.

Edward Leigh: I want to have a conversation with my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We all know that the Bill is about civil cases and not criminal cases, but as he well knows, because he has been a litigant, civil cases are very important and can affect a person’s whole life. They should therefore be treated with great seriousness.
	We should not approach debates where human rights are involved by saying that the litigants belong to a class of people whom we find reprehensible. It may be that
	they are reprehensible, but that argument is often used about minorities. It is used at the moment about Islamists and it would have been used about the IRA in the 20th century, the civilian German nationals who were interned in 1940, the Fenians in the 19th century, the French earlier than that, the Jesuits in the 17th century, the Chartists and John Wilkes. So let us not get into the mindset of, “These are unpleasant people.” They also have a right to justice.
	We should sometimes imagine how we would feel if we were the litigant. Let us suppose that we felt that something terrible had happened and our rights had been infringed in some way. How would we like a procedure whereby we went to court and halfway through the defence suddenly said, “This is all very secret and we cannot share it with you” and the judge said, “Okay, I’ll adjourn that and listen to the evidence on your behalf Member for New Forest East. You can trust me. I am appointed by the state. Or perhaps we can get some barrister appointed by the state and he can hear it”?
	Let us then suppose that a few hours or days later the judge says, “You haven’t heard this evidence against you, but I think your case doesn’t stand up.” What happens when he sums up at the end of the case, as of course in public he cannot adduce all this secret evidence? How would hon. Members feel if they were the litigant? Would they feel that they had received justice? What does it say for our worldwide reputation if serious allegations about torture and so on are made and a large part of the case—and the reason why the litigant did not win his case—is determined on the basis of secret evidence?
	We are then told that we are putting our security services at risk. That is nonsense, because the security services are like any other defendant, in that they can choose what evidence to submit to defend themselves. Is it really beyond the wit of man to defend these cases satisfactorily, for the most part? A question of the identity of agents may arise, but nobody is suggesting that the agent has to be brought before the court of law, or to have himself or his practices identified. Surely there are ways in which the case can be defended a lot of the time. I leave that point with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East. I know he takes the rights of litigants and human rights seriously, and we are taking a serious step today—

Geoffrey Cox: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Leigh: I was about to finish, but I will give way.

Geoffrey Cox: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a rule of law that if the Government are not able to defend an action and the evidence they are not able to put into court goes to the heart of the case, thus making the case unfair, they have the right to apply to strike the case out? If a case is untriable, the Government are able to strike the case out.

Edward Leigh: Yes, my hon. and learned Friend is an experienced leading counsel. I would have thought that there are various ways in which this problem could be resolved. The sky will not fall in. Our security services are not going to be put at risk. But there is a principle of natural justice and I think that we should proclaim it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 222, Noes 13.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	PARTNERSHIPS (PROSECUTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] (CONSTITUTION OF GENERAL COMMITTEES)

Ordered,
	That the proviso in paragraph (2)(i) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of general committees) shall not apply to any committee on the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].—(Nicky Morgan.)

CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Pamela Nash: I am very pleased to secure the debate, and to have the opportunity to exchange views with the Minister on the problems still being faced by parents assessed by the Child Support Agency under the 1993 scheme. I will concentrate on how this has severely affected one of my constituents, about whose case I have already been in correspondence with the Minister and the Department. It may seem odd to request a debate at the moment, when the Government have recently launched the most recent incarnation of the Child Support Agency. However, I would like to stress from the outset that I do not believe my constituent’s experience is an isolated one, and wish to take this chance to explore what might be a larger, underlying problem.
	It is in the mood of cross-party co-operation that I wish to conduct the debate, as it would not be fair or helpful to blame any one party or Government for the numerous IT policy failings that have occurred in the administration of the Child Support Agency, from its inception to the present day, under different Governments. The contentious issue of ensuring that parents support their children after the breakdown of a relationship has undergone repeated, technical and bureaucratic tinkering by successive Governments.
	When established in 1993, the CSA was originally designed simply to collect and enforce the child maintenance payments of non-resident parents on a formulaic basis. Government intervention was necessary following a long line of failures by the courts to establish a fair and consistent process of addressing the situation. However, the system created out of the Child Support Act 1991 was a product of the previous recession. As a result, it has been widely accused of being driven with the aim of saving the Government money, rather than collecting it for the children to whom it was owed. I remember only too well CSA letters dropping through my own letterbox as a child, and I can tell the Minister that the content of those letters pleased neither my mum nor my dad. Despite repeated attempts to fix the problems of the CSA, I find it unacceptable that there are still people being assessed under the same system that could not help my own family more than 20 years ago.
	My constituent, Gordon Russell, was first assessed by the CSA in April 2002, and he has paid what the CSA assessed he was due to pay up until very recently. Because of the date of his original assessment, his payments were assessed under the 1993 scheme. This week the 2003 scheme is 10 years old, and yet Mr Russell has never been allowed to change over to it. He and I have calculated that, had he been reassessed under the 2003 scheme when he expected to be in 2004, he would have paid more than £23,000 less in child maintenance than he has paid as a result of being assessed under the 1993 scheme.
	I want to demonstrate how the systemic failures of both the 1993 scheme and the revised 2003 scheme have impacted on Mr Russell, and possibly many others. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that policies are, and are seen to be, equitable—that is, that two
	people in almost identical situations should never find themselves in very different financial positions solely as a result of Government policy. However, by running the 1993 scheme concurrently with the 2003 scheme, that is precisely what has happened to Mr Russell, who is expected to pay almost double the amount paid by others in exactly the same financial and personal situation who were assessed post-March 2003.
	Mr Russell contacted my office early in my parliamentary career. He is a non-resident parent of two children. Initially, following his separation from his wife in 2000, they agreed a sum for maintenance between themselves. They arrived at it after he contacted the Child Support Agency for advice on how to proceed. He says he was told that the system was very complex and was about to be amended. With that in mind, Mr Russell and his ex-wife used the 1993 scheme as a calculator, but at that point the CSA was not directly involved in the assessment or the administration of the payments. In 2002, for various reasons, that voluntary agreement broke down and the CSA was contacted by Mr Russell’s ex-wife. At that point a new CSA case was opened and an assessment made under the 1993 scheme of the time. The resulting calculation was a monthly payment by Mr Russell of just under £585. Again, the CSA was not involved in the administration of the payments, which I understand Mr Russell made on a voluntary basis to his ex-wife.
	In spring 2003, Mr Russell received a letter from Doug Smith, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, informing him of the new assessment scheme—I expect it was sent to many people in his position. The letter stated:
	“The introduction of the new scheme will be a complex task, which must be planned and handled very carefully. When the Government is sure that the changes are working well for new applications, I will write to you again. I will then explain when your child support maintenance will change and what this means for you.”
	It is clear that Mr Russell and the others who received these letters were continually reassured by the CSA that their cases would eventually be transferred to the new scheme, but that never transpired. The reasons given for the failure of the administration of the 1993 scheme centred on an over-complicated calculations process, an inadequate enforcement procedure and multiple IT failures. The 2003 scheme was sadly also plagued by IT problems. I understand that one issue for the new system was that cases from the old scheme could not be transferred to the new scheme’s simpler assessment process. That resulted in the CSA being left to administer two different systems concurrently, in a twin-track process. When Doug Smith departed the CSA, not long after he wrote that letter, he declared:
	“I and the senior management team have done a good job over the last year to mask the worst impact of this IT system from the people who really count in this, who are our clients.”
	Lord Kirkwood, then Chair of this House’s Select Committee on Work and Pensions, disagreed, saying of the CSA’s problems:
	“This is not just about computers. It is a systemic, chronic failure of management right across the totality of the agency.”
	For eight years Mr Russell paid the amount agreed with the CSA under the 1993 scheme. His expectation that he would be transferred to the new scheme was never met. In 2012, Mr Russell’s daughter celebrated her 19th birthday, which under the CSA’s rules meant that
	his maintenance payment for his children needed to be recalculated. He was told at that point that his monthly payment would be £511 for only one child. He challenged that figure, as it was only £74 less than he was paying for two children. As a result, a new assessment was made, still under the 1993 scheme, which concluded that he was in fact due to pay £618 a month—more than he was previously paying for both children. At that point Mr Russell decided he had to take a stand on this inequity, as he felt—indeed, he has been advised—that he should be on the 2003 scheme, under which he would be paying almost half that amount. In fact, he could no longer afford to pay that much money and felt that he should not have to. At that point he took the decision to pay the sum of £350 a month, which was what he calculated he would be paying if he had been assessed under the 2003 scheme. As a result, Mr Russell started to accrue arrears, and only two weeks ago, his wages were arrested.
	For the past few months, I have been acting in support of Mr Russell’s case, the essence of which is that there is a gross inequity between his position and that of someone in identical circumstances who just happened to be introduced into the CSA scheme a few months after he was. To be clear, a non-resident parent like Mr Russell with children of the same age living with a parent with an identical financial situation to that of Mr Russell’s ex-wife, and with the same salary and financial commitments as Mr Russell, could pay much less child maintenance if they had been assessed post-March 2003.
	I do not see how the Minister or anyone else can argue that that is a fair system. It is unfair to the non-resident parent who pays double the amount, and it is unfair to the children and parents who receive less under the same scheme. I would appreciate hearing from the Minister how many non-resident parents are still paying maintenance calculated under the 1993 scheme, and how many of those parents are paying more than they would be paying if they had been assessed under the 2003 scheme.
	The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 made provision for a new system of child support to replace both the existing systems and to end the twin-track approach. Subsequently, it was decided that cases would not be transferred after all from the pre-2003 caseload to the post-2003 system as planned. Instead, all cases would eventually move over to the new system, once it was up and running. That sounds fair, but unfortunately there appears to be a nine-year gap between when the decision was first taken under the previous Government and its being implemented by this Government, and 2017 is the date when all cases are planned to have been moved over. That means that cases such as that of my constituent will have to continue under the current arrangements unless there is some other reason to convert the case. That would normally apply if a parent on the pre-2003 system made a new application to the CSA in relation to a second child, in what is known as a linked case.
	My understanding is that it is impossible to change from the 1993 scheme to the 2003 scheme, or indeed to the new scheme, unless the paying parent has another child or the receiving parent has another child with another non-resident parent who they are claiming
	maintenance from. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on whether that is correct. I see him nodding. In that case, I want to ask him why that is the case. The CSA’s own documentation says that that is the case so that all children in linked cases are assessed under the same scheme. I presume that that is to make it fairer for all concerned. I would argue that, to ensure the system is fair, surely all cases in the UK should be assessed under exactly the same scheme.
	Reassessment is made regularly in a whole range of changes of circumstances, including parents getting married or moving jobs. I am still not clear about the obstacle to reassessing a person’s case on a different scheme when many changes of circumstances result in a recalculation anyway. I cannot help but guess that cost might be a factor. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide an estimate of the administrative cost of moving an individual from the 1993 scheme to the 2003 scheme.
	In terms of the differences between the two schemes, I find it unacceptable that, in the case of Mr Russell, I have recently received correspondence from CSA officials and from the Minister indicating that, in the view of the Government, it is simply a matter of moving between two equal but different systems. For example, the Minister stated in a letter to me that:
	“For every parent who believes they will gain under the 2003 scheme, there is a parent who may lose out. While in most 1993 scheme cases one of the two parents would prefer to move onto the 2003 scheme for financial reasons it would not be fair or practical to transfer a case for this reason.”
	That argument was reiterated by Andrew Jackson, a CSA senior client service manager, in a letter to me stating that
	“for every parent who may believe they will gain under the new rules, there is a parent who may lose out.”
	Surely what they should be arguing is that all parents, and all children for that matter, should be treated equally.
	The 1993 scheme was deemed unfit, and a new scheme was therefore put in place. That was a replacement improved scheme, and it was never designed to be run long term alongside the previous scheme. By definition, as a replacement scheme it was introduced as it was thought to be fairer. I find the Government’s argument somewhat bizarre—namely, that for every loser as a result of the two-track approach to CSA there is a corresponding winner—as if someone gaining from an unfair system somehow compensates those who lose out. In my opinion, this argument about swings and roundabouts to support an indefensible two-track system is not worthy of the Department or the Minister.
	If the IT problems of the CSA did not exist, would they continue to run two systems on the basis that, on average, one person’s loss is another person’s gain? Of course not. If the administrative, managerial and IT problems did not exist at the CSA, we would have had a single system many years ago. Yes, within such a system, there could be some winners and losers, but the important point would be that everyone would be assessed under the same rules. I appreciate that that is what the new system coming into play is planning to do but, as I said earlier, people will have to wait a long time before they go on to it, which is not good enough.
	The most recent correspondence I received from the CSA about this case was from a complaints senior review manager and it is littered with serious errors about the basic facts of the case, including the accusation
	that Mr Russell has been paying only £350 a month since April 2002, when in fact he paid the full assessed amount up to June 2012. Since then, he has chosen to pay what he would pay if assessed under the 2003 scheme. I appreciate that this is a small and specific example of a mistake, but how can my constituent—or, for that matter, anyone—have faith in the CSA’s ability to run such an important system when it gets simple facts wrong in respect of a serious complaint by a Member of Parliament leading to months of correspondence between myself and the organisation?
	In conclusion, the system was changed in 2003 because the previous one was not working—it was not fit for purpose and it was unfair. The figures I have cited this evening are not just figures on a balance sheet, and cannot be put down simply to bad luck if a person was assessed under the 1993 scheme. Successive Governments have had a decade to fix this, and lives have been ruined in the meantime. I hope that the Minister is able to answer some of the points I have raised, particularly about how many people are still paying maintenance assessed under the 1993 scheme. Why exactly have all those people never been switched over to the 2003 scheme? What are the Government going to do to stop this situation continuing and to compensate those who have suffered as a result? How long will it be before those assessed before March 2003 are moved on to the latest scheme? If the 1993 scheme was found to be unfair, why did the Government continue to use it for another 10 years?

Steve Webb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on securing this debate and on the assiduity with which she has represented her constituent. I have looked into the individual case and corresponded with her a number of times about it. I will frame my remarks in a more general way, however, so as not to disclose any further personal information about her constituent, save to say that if the Child Support Agency has sent a recent letter containing factual errors, I hope she will send me a copy as I would be happy to look further into that specific issue.
	The hon. Lady raised an important point about the fact that there are still 261,000 cases of people being assessed under the 1993 rules. Perfectly reasonably, she said that she did not want to approach the debate in a partisan manner, and neither do I. I will simply observe, chronologically as it were, that the 2003 system came in. I shall say more about the reasons for that, but it was not because the 1993 system was felt to be fundamentally unfair or that the figures the system produced were somehow wrong. Rather, it was about the massive bureaucracy and complexity of assessing anybody, which meant vast amounts of time were required and vast amounts of evidence had to be gathered. That is why the decision was taken by the previous Government to streamline all that—not because the answers of the 1993 system were inherently wrong or worse than under the 2003 system, but because of the awful amount of time and effort involved. It was fundamentally a streamlining process.
	The original intention was, as the hon. Lady said, to migrate people across, and for several years the previous Government sought to do that in good faith. That is
	why letters of the sort she mentioned from Doug Smith were sent. Those letters were subject to the caveat that when the Government were convinced things were in order, those people would be moved across—but they never were. In fact, it was the independent Henshaw report that finally put the nail in coffin of this idea back in 2006. So well into the period of the last Government, it was decided that it was simply not feasible to bulk transfer people across. As the hon. Lady will have gathered—now there are more than a quarter of a million of cases; back then, there were far more—the IT issues, the compatibility of the data and the whole difficulty involved in moving things across meant that bulk transfer and bulk case closure were simply not an option.
	The hon. Lady asked why, if a single constituent had calculated that he would pay less under the 2003 system, we could not just transfer that one person. Within the total of 261,000, there will be an awful lot of people who are potentially in that position. I do not know how many precisely, because we have not made 261,000 calculations; if we had, we could probably transfer all the people concerned. However, it is clear that there will be a proportion of people of whom that is true, and a proportion of whom the opposite is true.
	I was pleased when the hon. Lady rightly said that what matters is the well-being of the children. A unilateral case-by-case closure is currently against the law, but if we changed the law to enable all the people who did not fancy their ’93 assessment because they thought it was bigger than the 2003 assessment simply to transfer to the latter, tens of thousands of children—perhaps hundreds of thousands—would receive less child maintenance.
	The position would be asymmetrical, because parents with care who calculated that they were receiving more under the old system would presumably not have a right of veto. All the non-resident parents who were paying more under the old system than they would under the new one would be transferred, although there would be a massive take-up problem: people would be asking us to do calculations and all the rest of it. If people opted to be transferred in tens of thousands of cases, tens of thousands of children would receive less money and no one would receive more, because no one would move in the other direction.
	I hope the hon. Lady recognises that that would create a different kind of unfairness. How is it fair for someone who would pay less under the new system to be able to move to that system, while someone else—a mother, for example—who would receive a larger amount under the new system because the maintenance would be higher, as it will be in some cases, cannot do the same? That person will then persuade her Member of Parliament to hold an Adjournment debate and say, “It’s not fair. My ex-husband could transfer because he wanted to pay less, and I should like to be in the system in which I receive more. Why can he do what he wants and I cannot?”

Pamela Nash: I would argue that if non-resident parents are to be allowed to ask to be transferred, resident parents should have the same right.
	Will the Minister clarify his position on cases in which there is such a large discrepancy between the amounts being paid under the two schemes? How can both schemes be seen to be fair when according to one
	assessment my constituent should be paying £350 a month and according to the other he should be paying nearly £600 a month?

Steve Webb: The aim of the ’93 system was to produce a tailored figure, and it took account of factors such as housing and travel costs. I believe that in some cases nearly 100 items of data were required to calculate the assessment. The incomes of the new partner and the parent with care had to be assessed, for instance. There are different answers to different questions. If those doing the calculations take the view that all the complexities of people’s circumstances should be taken into account, they will come up with one number; if they take the view that what is wanted is a rough and ready, quick calculation—15%, 20%, 25%; now let us get on with our lives—they will come up with a different number. Is one right? Is the other one right? Who is to say?
	It could be argued that a comprehensive system is fairer because it is tailored to individual cases, but the calculation takes for ever. The last Government took the view that we were spending all our time doing complicated sums instead of getting child maintenance to people. The change was not based on the view that the 1993 figures were wrong—that they were inherently unfair to one party or another.
	The hon. Lady asked about the process of migration. That is obviously important to her constituent, and I should probably put something on record now, because we have not said a great deal about it so far. The new system is intended to turn things around. That may be more difficult in the case of those who have been in the system for a decade or more, but, in general, we are trying to make sorting things out the default.
	For many years the couple to whom the hon. Lady referred seem to have talked to each other and resolved matters. We know that children do better when mum and dad sort things out between themselves, and our goal is to make the child maintenance service a last resort. We are investing resources in help and support for separated families—in web applications, advice services and so on—to help people to sort things out for themselves, and if they contact us, we will signpost them and advise them on how they can do that. Clearly, however, some will still come to us, and about 1 million cases remain in the system, so we will have a migration process. Let me explain how that will work.
	Pre-Christmas, in December, we started the process for new cases where there were four or more children. It is a very slow pathfinder system trying to learn from the ’93 and ’03 failures. Those cases will go straight into the new system and later this year, when we are convinced that it is working—it is going well so far—we will bring in the two-child-and-above new cases, and later still in the year all new cases. Once we are convinced all of that is working, we will begin the process of migration.
	When we close cases under the existing two systems and bring them into the new system, we will encourage parents to reach family-based arrangements. Cases will be closed over a three-year period from next year, and where maintenance has been hard-won—where a non-resident parent has tried quite hard not to pay but we have got payment—we are thinking very carefully about how we can manage the case closure and migration
	process to make sure we do not disrupt the maintenance that is flowing. We are thinking very carefully about the sequencing of the way we do that.
	We will introduce charges for the use of the statutory scheme, particularly on the non-resident parent. Again, the idea is to encourage both parties to reach a family-based arrangement, rather than to use the statutory system. Both parents can avoid collection fees entirely by paying directly using Direct Pay. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases we will give the paying parent the opportunity to pay the receiving parent directly. This Direct Pay option will give parents access to the statutory service in a way that can help rebuild trust between them.
	We want to avoid the mistakes of the past. We acknowledge that some parents are better off under the ’93 scheme and some are better off under the ’03 scheme, but I stress for the record that these are statutory assessments, so people cannot say, “I don’t think the law as it stands is fair, so I will decide what I will pay.” These are legal liabilities, so the amounts are owed; it is not a matter of choice, I am afraid. I appreciate the point that some people, on both sides in many cases, will feel the sum is unfair. That is why if somebody does not pay what they are legally required to pay, arrears build up, and that will remain the case.
	The previous Administration originally planned to move all 1993 scheme cases to the 2003 scheme, but it was simply not possible clerically to move 250,000 or so cases one at a time. We want to focus our energies on getting the new scheme up and running and migrating everyone to it—except where we can secure family-based arrangements—rather than put a lot of effort into moving people from the previous-but-one scheme into the previous scheme.
	We are trying to ensure what happened in the past does not happen again. We are using tried-and-tested—standardised—software, as one of the problems with the ’93 system was that it was bespoke and unlike anything anyone else was using. We are also introducing the 2012 scheme gradually through a pathfinder approach, so that any issues can be picked up at an early stage, before we have a large case load.
	The 2012 scheme, as I mentioned, is now open and progress so far has been good. We will gradually move people across and we have been consulting on the exact sequencing. I cannot give the hon. Lady a date for when her constituent’s case will be moved across, but our idea is to contact people six months ahead of the point at which their case would be due to be closed. We will encourage them to reach a family-based arrangement where possible and will support them in doing that. If that is not possible, six months afterwards the case can be reopened under the 2012 system, which is designed to be simpler and contains charges to encourage people to come to their own arrangements.
	Another point that I think is relevant to her constituent’s case is that the 2012 scheme uses more up-to-date income information. One problem with cases on the ’93 system is that they are often stuck in the system untouched, so the maintenance assessments get very out of date, and they can be based on very old income data. I do not know whether that is the case with her constituent, but if someone asks for a reassessment and finds that their liability has gone up, that is often because the previous assessment was based on very old wage data.
	The beauty of the new system is that it will use most recent tax return data from HMRC. Rather than our having to go to a non-resident parent, ask for wage slips, wait for them to come back, process them and so on without reassessing the assessment, those data will feed through automatically to us. Once a year on the anniversary we will revisit the assessment and update it with the latest income information so people will not have the rude shock of a sudden hike or drop in their liability, which will be based on the latest income information.
	The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a set of issues for the people on the ’93 system who are paying more than those on the ’03 system. Equally, a set of parents with care would love to be on the ’03 system but are stuck on the ’93 system. It is important to realise that and perhaps we have not communicated it in correspondence as clearly as we might. We are not saying that because the computers cannot do it there is no issue of fairness, but there are multiple issues of fairness.
	What we mean by “for every one, there is another” is that for every parent with care who would receive more under the new system, there is a non-resident parent who would pay less under it. Simply allowing case-by-case migration, quite aside from being unlawful, would create a different set of injustices. That is my conclusion: we want to get as quickly as we can to a new streamlined system that is fair to all and in which we do not have either of the legacy systems while learning the lessons from the past. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the process has not worked as well in the past as it should have done and we want to get to the new system as quickly as we can.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.